Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 16:43:14
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Purifier - no part of the rapid fire rule changes the RANGE of the weapon. Range and Maximum range are the same in the rules.
If you are within half range you fire two shots. Find in that part of the rules where your range is altered - the distance between the firing model and the target unit is within half range, but the range of the models weapon canot change - if it did you would no longer be in half range, you would be "in range" and you would not get 2 shots.
The rule really isnt ambiguous.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 16:51:03
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:Purifier - no part of the rapid fire rule changes the RANGE of the weapon. Range and Maximum range are the same in the rules.
If you are within half range you fire two shots. Find in that part of the rules where your range is altered - the distance between the firing model and the target unit is within half range, but the range of the models weapon canot change - if it did you would no longer be in half range, you would be "in range" and you would not get 2 shots.
The rule really isnt ambiguous.
See the reply before yours.
Also, I already ammended it to say that the model's range is chnged and then to say it didn't matter sincerange and max range apparently are interchangable. An interesting point was brought up though in asking why we keep the other weapons charactaristics but discard range in the wound pool ( except for the longest range weapon
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 17:13:37
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Because keeping track of ranges really means you should remove the firing model - target unit abstractin, and then youre keeping track of how many models each firing model can reach
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 17:31:19
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:Because keeping track of ranges really means you should remove the firing model - target unit abstractin, and then youre keeping track of how many models each firing model can reach
That's taking it yet another step towards the extreme.
We already took one step when we decided to let wound allocation be limited by range, rather than leaving that in the to-hit rolling.
Another step would then be to divide the ranges on weapons in different groups, each group being able to hit what they can reach. That would homogonise the rules a bit.
Yours, having to roll for each model to make sure he isn't hitting anything he shouldn't be, is a few more steps. It's not the same as what I was asking about.
That said, that's obviously just wishful thinking. I find the rule as it is with that faq backwards in the extreme. Taking a weapon in a unit in order to allow the other weapons to wound beyond their ability is something that should either not be needed or not possible. It has no grounds in any kind of logic.
And to claim that the rule is clear unless you are "simple minded" is, I guess, pretty dakkanautian.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 18:34:12
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta
|
Let us remember, before that FAQ you could have one model from the target unit just at your maximum range. Everyone shoots that one model and wounds would continue on with infinite range.
They change that a bit and limit it to the max range of the unit and now it's an issue that short range weapons can still wound past their range?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 18:40:13
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
sirlynchmob wrote:Let us remember, before that FAQ you could have one model from the target unit just at your maximum range. Everyone shoots that one model and wounds would continue on with infinite range.
They change that a bit and limit it to the max range of the unit and now it's an issue that short range weapons can still wound past their range?
No, it's an issue that they can sometimes and can't at other times.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 19:50:49
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Purifier wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Let us remember, before that FAQ you could have one model from the target unit just at your maximum range. Everyone shoots that one model and wounds would continue on with infinite range.
They change that a bit and limit it to the max range of the unit and now it's an issue that short range weapons can still wound past their range?
No, it's an issue that they can sometimes and can't at other times.
*Trying to think of a situation that would be a suitable example of this*
Okay, how about:
1) 4 boltguns and a bolt pistol fire at a mob of Ork Boyz.
2) Only four Boyz are within 12", the rest are between 12.1" and 15".
3) All weapons must fire at the same time, at the same unit, and they do so.
4) Because the bolt pistol is being fired by a character (a sergeant here), this result gets rolled after the boltguns (as per player choice) to know if the character rolls a six (with which he wants to snipe a Boy with rokkit launcha, who was within 12").
5) All the bolters kill a Boy each, now there are no gitz within 12"
6) Character scores a 6, allowing him to choose his target.
7) Where does it go?
***NOTE: I don't often get the chance to play WH40K, so some of this may be a little of. Feel free to correct me.***
My understanding is that there were targets in range, but they got removed by the bolters, thus out-ranging the pistol. The character should be able to target the model of his choice, but they're either dead or out of range.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 19:53:42
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
First things first:
1) All shooting attacks are made at the same time.
2) Boltguns have a 24 inch range.
Ergo any of the wounds from that units shooting, in the example that Selym provided, can go onto any Ork's within 24 inches.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 19:55:32
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
DeathReaper wrote:First things first:
1) All shooting attacks are made at the same time.
2) Boltguns have a 24 inch range.
Ergo any of the wounds from that units shooting, in the example that Selym provided, can go onto any Ork's within 24 inches.
Checking my understanding:
Bolt pistols only have a range of 12". Wouldn't that mean that it's shots only go to the front four?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 19:58:29
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Selym wrote: DeathReaper wrote:First things first: 1) All shooting attacks are made at the same time. 2) Boltguns have a 24 inch range. Ergo any of the wounds from that units shooting, in the example that Selym provided, can go onto any Ork's within 24 inches.
Checking my understanding: Bolt pistols only have a range of 12". Wouldn't that mean that it's shots only go to the front four?
Not according to the FaQ. 40k FaQ wrote: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. If an Ork was in range of any of the weapons fired when the to hit rolls were made, than that model can be selected for would allocation. This goes for all of the orks in the unit being fired upon. So if you take a HKM on an LRC here is how it works on the turn you shoot the missile. The Hurricane Bolters still need to be within 24 inches of at least one model in the target unit to be able to roll to hit with the Hurricane Bolters, but since you are firing the HKM as well, the wounds from that shooting can be allocated to models that are not within 24 inches of the Hurricane Bolters. Here are my Mad MS Paint skillz to show you how the new Wound allocation works with this example. The Hurricane bolters are in range so they get to fire 6 shots, but not within 12 inches so they do not Double Tap. The Assault cannon is within range so it can fire. If only the Hurricane bolters and Assault cannon fire, the only casualties that can be caused by the 10 shots are from models 1 and 2. If the HKM fires then any model from 1-20 can be removed as a casualty. (Tough there are only potentially 11 models that can be killed because you only have 11 shots). (Please excuse the crudity of this model. I didn't have time to build it to scale or paint it.).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/16 20:04:01
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 20:05:35
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Water-Caste Negotiator
|
DR is correct here - the boltguns are able to wound out to 24", so all wounds, precision or not, can be extended out to 24", even if the sarge's weapon couldn't actually reach there (though the precision shot rule may specifically clarify who can be allocated to, I don't have my rulebook atm).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 20:09:29
Subject: Re:The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Gah, this again? Why won't this go away?
Seriously, it isn't that hard to grasp:
When firing with one of your units, the first thing you have to do (after determining that at least one model in the firing unit has range and LOS to the target) is check the range and LOS for each particular firing model. Any firing model that is found to be completely out of range or LOS of the target does not shoot. Very simple. You are looking to see which of your firing models are able to fire because they are within range and LOS of the target.
Now, once you've managed to cause hits and wounds, it is time to allocate those wounds onto models in the enemy unit. AT THIS POINT, all that matters is what the firing unit as a whole has range and/or LOS to. This is the maximum limit to where casualties can be pulled from. So now you're just looking to see which models in the target unit are within range and LOS of at least ONE MODEL in the firing unit.
So again, this 2nd step is simple...as long as the model in the target unit is within range and LOS of at least one firing model, then it is valid to be a casualty.
Seriously simple, seriously easy.
First part = checking to make sure each firing model individually is within range and LOS of the target unit.
Second part = checking to make sure each casualty is within range and LOS of the firing unit.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 20:18:16
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Purifier wrote:
And to claim that the rule is clear unless you are "simple minded" is, I guess, pretty dakkanautian.
Who said that? Because you have !quoted" suggesting someone specifically stated that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 20:23:56
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Water-Caste Negotiator
|
yak, since you're here: what happens with a conversion beamer? The things I'm specifically curious about are when it scatters into a different S/AP range, and when allocation takes it into a different S/AP range, and if it's in a unit with range greater than the beamer (chapter master perhaps) and scores hits outside of its own range. Is it simply determined as soon as it's fired, or as soon as you determine where it lands, or when it comes time to allocate/take saves? I don't own a SM codex, so if there's a simple answer, I apologize for wasting time.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 20:33:37
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
uberjoras wrote:yak, since you're here: what happens with a conversion beamer? The things I'm specifically curious about are when it scatters into a different S/ AP range, and when allocation takes it into a different S/ AP range, and if it's in a unit with range greater than the beamer (chapter master perhaps) and scores hits outside of its own range. Is it simply determined as soon as it's fired, or as soon as you determine where it lands, or when it comes time to allocate/take saves? I don't own a SM codex, so if there's a simple answer, I apologize for wasting time.
Spelled out simply in the Codex, you measure to the centre of the marker after scatter.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 20:34:29
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:Purifier wrote:
And to claim that the rule is clear unless you are "simple minded" is, I guess, pretty dakkanautian.
Who said that? Because you have !quoted" suggesting someone specifically stated that.
It's right here, in the thread, you know...
Lungpickle wrote:Wow!!!
The FAQ your referring to was asked in a dumb fashion and answered in a dumb fashion. Plain and simply all it did was make it confusing for the simple minded people.
Yes Yak, we've understood. It's "easy." It is however completely illogical and not in line with anything else in the rulebook. Being able to extend the range of the wound pool of short range weapons by adding a weapon that reaches further is weird. Either allow those weapons to wound either way, or don't allow them to be extended by a second weapon's range. The middle ground bothers me to no end, and I wish I could find something that spoke against it, and I was hoping someone would provide me with that.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 21:09:02
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Purifier wrote:
Yes Yak, we've understood. It's "easy." It is however completely illogical and not in line with anything else in the rulebook. Being able to extend the range of the wound pool of short range weapons by adding a weapon that reaches further is weird.
No weirder than having a unit with only 12 inch range weapons being able to kill everyone in the target unit if only the closest guy in the target unit was in range and Line of Sight. (This is how it worked pre FaQ).
Either allow those weapons to wound either way, or don't allow them to be extended by a second weapon's range. The middle ground bothers me to no end, and I wish I could find something that spoke against it, and I was hoping someone would provide me with that.
There is nothing that speaks against it.
Why do you find it odd that it works like that, when it was equally weird that you could not even target a unit at 12.000001 inches if you only had 12 inch guns, but if one model in the target unit was exactly 12 inches from all firing models then every model in the target unit could die regardless of how far from the firing unit they were.
This could put the casualties/wound allocation at 30 inches or more away from a shooting unit, but still being allocated wounds/removed as casualties just because a single model was within 12 inches.
How is that less weird?
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 21:13:33
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Purifier - apologies, I tend not to read too closely to lungpickles posts
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/17 01:45:09
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Purifier wrote:
Yes Yak, we've understood. It's "easy." It is however completely illogical and not in line with anything else in the rulebook. Being able to extend the range of the wound pool of short range weapons by adding a weapon that reaches further is weird. Either allow those weapons to wound either way, or don't allow them to be extended by a second weapon's range. The middle ground bothers me to no end, and I wish I could find something that spoke against it, and I was hoping someone would provide me with that.
Think of it this way:
Do you find it illogical if your one model firing the Lascannon can only see a single model in the target unit but when it gets time to allocate that wound its getting put onto a guy in the target unit that your Lascannon model can't actually see?
Or do you find it illogical that your flamer template is placed over a clump of the most models in the target unit, but then casualties from that attack end up getting pulled from other models in the target unit that happen to be closer to another model in your firing unit?
Perhaps your answer to all of those is: 'yes, I find them illogical', but the fact is these are all abstractions in the shooting phase to help reconcile a UNIT's shooting. Yes, you make sure each firing model has range and LoS to at least one model in the target unit, but after that point, the shooting is resolved from a firing UNIT's standpoint (not the individual firing models). So all that matters from that point on is whether the models in the target unit are within LOS of ANY FIRING MODEL and within range of ANY FIRING MODEL, because that is the firing UNIT's total threat radius.
If you absolutely *must* think of this from a fluffy point of view, then imagine that the 'range' of a weapon is not a hard-line stopping point where the bullet simply stops and falls to the ground at that point. Instead, it represents a functional range that the weapon is able to reliably cause damage. So once a weapon is found to be within range of even a single model in the target unit, it is able to inflict damage reliably enough to bother rolling for. However, the overall range of a unit is based on the longest range weapon in the unit...since everyone in the firing unit is firing at the same target, we can imagine the longer ranged weapons are being used almost like a ranging shot...the guy with the Lascannon uses his range-finder and calls out range to the guys firing the flamers, which allows them to adjust the angle of their spray accordingly. As long as those flamers have at least one model within range, then they are able to inflict damage on the target and the presence of a longer range weapon in the firing unit helps them to gauge range to the target and inflict casualties that they would not otherwise be able to.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/17 01:46:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/17 08:29:23
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
You are both missing the point.
I can find a fluffy way to justify anything. That's not the problem.
And I don't have a problem with being able to reach everyone if you can reach one, and I don't have a problem with being able to reach only what is within your reach.
What I have a problem with is that it sometimes works one way and sometimes the other, by virtue of adding one gun with longer range.
It makes for a rule where guns sometimes reach and sometimes don't.
The problem you guys are having with understanding the distinction is most probably born out of acceptance for the rule. I think you've accepted how it works and in your minds it has become a consistent part of the ruleset.
It isn't though. It's the only thing that varies this wildly that I can think of.
It bothers me that when you build an army, it is actually a more than valid tactic to think "well, this unit of pistolwielders would benefit greatly from having one guy with an assault weapon in it."
If that's a situation you are in, you should certainly smack an assault weapon in there to boost your pistols.
That makes no sense.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/17 08:41:37
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Purifier wrote:You are both missing the point.
I can find a fluffy way to justify anything. That's not the problem.
And I don't have a problem with being able to reach everyone if you can reach one, and I don't have a problem with being able to reach only what is within your reach.
What I have a problem with is that it sometimes works one way and sometimes the other, by virtue of adding one gun with longer range.
It makes for a rule where guns sometimes reach and sometimes don't.
The problem you guys are having with understanding the distinction is most probably born out of acceptance for the rule. I think you've accepted how it works and in your minds it has become a consistent part of the ruleset.
It isn't though. It's the only thing that varies this wildly that I can think of.
It bothers me that when you build an army, it is actually a more than valid tactic to think "well, this unit of pistolwielders would benefit greatly from having one guy with an assault weapon in it."
If that's a situation you are in, you should certainly smack an assault weapon in there to boost your pistols.
That makes no sense.
Well, pre- FAQ, as long as those pistols were in range of one model in the unit, they could cause casualties throughout the entire unit.
So with the FAQ, they've now put a limitation in place so that casualties at least have to come within the overall range of the firing unit, which puts *some* limitations, but without totally hosing short ranged weaponry. Personally, I wish they'd just change it back to the pre- FAQ RAW as it was out of the rulebook (as I think it made more sense), but this new rule works and does fit with how LOS is handled as well (initially from each firing model and then for casualties from the entire firing unit).
So yes, from a UNIT standpoint, it makes it better to include longer ranged weapons in unit, but in reality it only really makes a major difference in a few odd cases where the unit is made up almost exclusively with super-short ranged weapons like an Ork burna units, etc.
Its odd, but not a big deal.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/17 09:35:54
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
Netherlands
|
DeathReaper wrote:No weirder than having a unit with only 12 inch range weapons being able to kill everyone in the target unit if only the closest guy in the target unit was in range and Line of Sight. (This is how it worked pre FaQ).
I thought it was pretty okay.
You cannot "aim" beyond 12", but your bullets were flying in that direction anyway.
The 'problem' with the new FAQ is that somehow a bolter becomes more effective if a single model within the squad has a missile launcher.
But we've had those threads a long time ago and I think it's pretty clear what the opinions on it are.
Luckily some people I play with have decided to tell this FAQ to go " FAQ itself" and plays by the old rules
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/17 12:07:51
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
Kangodo wrote: DeathReaper wrote:No weirder than having a unit with only 12 inch range weapons being able to kill everyone in the target unit if only the closest guy in the target unit was in range and Line of Sight. (This is how it worked pre FaQ).
I thought it was pretty okay.
You cannot "aim" beyond 12", but your bullets were flying in that direction anyway.
The 'problem' with the new FAQ is that somehow a bolter becomes more effective if a single model within the squad has a missile launcher.
But we've had those threads a long time ago and I think it's pretty clear what the opinions on it are.
Luckily some people I play with have decided to tell this FAQ to go " FAQ itself" and plays by the old rules 
Real world wise its weird because technically you can aim as far as the eyes can see, but a range on a weapon determines up to which point the projectile would be effective (killing / maiming). So your bullets can fly out of range, but wouldn’t necessarily do anything.
Problem is this doesn't always contribute to good game play =D
|
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/02 17:58:16
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
The FaQ:
40k FaQ wrote: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.
If a model in the target unit was in range of any of the weapons fired when the to hit rolls were made, than that model can be selected for would allocation. This goes for all of the models in the unit being fired upon.
So if you take a HKM on an LRC here is how it works on the turn you shoot the missile.
The Hurricane Bolters still need to be within 24 inches of at least one model in the target unit to be able to roll to hit with the Hurricane Bolters, but since you are firing the HKM as well, the wounds from that shooting can be allocated to models that are not within 24 inches of the Hurricane Bolters.
Here are my Mad MS Paint skillz to show you how the new Wound allocation works with this example.
The Hurricane bolters are in range so they get to fire 6 shots, but not within 12 inches so they do not Double Tap. The Assault cannon is within range so it can fire.
If only the Hurricane bolters and Assault cannon fire, the only casualties that can be caused by the 10 shots are from models 1 and 2.
If the HKM fires then any model from 1-20 can be removed as a casualty. (Tough there are only potentially 11 models that can be killed because you only have 11 shots).
Here is a Picture to help with the explanation (Please excuse the crudity of this model. I didn't have time to build it to scale or paint it.).

If the above was confusing, hopefully this example will be more clear:
Scenario: a LRC with a TL Assault Cannon and a HKM is the firing unit. The target unit is a unit of 4 infantry models, all of these models are in Line of Sight.
Pre FaQ in the spoiler as to not confuse people.
Post FAQ: Only the Assault Cannon from the LRC fires. If the Assault Cannon has range to 1 enemy model, and not the other models in the unit, then only the enemy model that was in range and in Line of Sight, can be killed. (The one enemy model that is within range can be allocated any and all of the wounds until he dies, but he is the only one eligible to die).
Post FaQ: The Assault Cannon and HKM from the LRC fires. If the Assault Cannon has range to 1 enemy model, but the HKM has range to all 4 models, in the target unit, then four enemy models, in Line of Sight, can be killed.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/02 18:20:00
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Been Around the Block
Mechanicville, NY
|
My suggestion is to do what our game groups have done and completely ignore this FAQ. It is a disaster area.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/02 18:26:50
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta
|
Loopy wrote:My suggestion is to do what our game groups have done and completely ignore this FAQ. It is a disaster area.
so instead of limiting range of would allocation to the max range of the unit, you suggest keeping the infinite range wound allocation?
up here, we play max unit range.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/02 18:27:15
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Loopy wrote:My suggestion is to do what our game groups have done and completely ignore this FAQ. It is a disaster area.
It really isn't
It is slightly more restrictive than the situation used to be, with a single caveat that makes it almost identical to how it used to work.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/02 18:34:10
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
Netherlands
|
I can see how it's confusing for people, we also don't use this FAQ.
We basically have two "ranges" in GW.
Maximum Range: The range at what you can shoot at.
Effective Range: The range at what you can wound at.
In the old situation the M-Range was on the profile and the E-Range was infinite.
In the new situation the M-Range is on the profile and the E-range is equal to the longest M-Range.
The old ruling didn't always feel realistic, but neither does the new one.
All it gives is more stuff to keep track on.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/02 19:18:33
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Been Around the Block
Mechanicville, NY
|
DeathReaper wrote: Loopy wrote:My suggestion is to do what our game groups have done and completely ignore this FAQ. It is a disaster area.
It really isn't
It is slightly more restrictive than the situation used to be, with a single caveat that makes it almost identical to how it used to work.
At the time, we couldn't agree whether it limited the individual range of weapons or it just caused a complete logic fault by contradicting "Out of Range" completely. When we found out that the general community resolution was the former but allowing long range weapons to ignore that fact, we decided that it was best to just write it off as a disaster area and not worry about it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/02 21:13:32
Subject: The FAQ'ed range of wound pools
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
So from my understanding is that I should always put 1 or 2 mekboys with burna boys.
Say I am with in flamer range, but only 4 out of 10 models can be hit by my flamers. But the other 6 is in range of my mega blastas.
I do 20 wounds with flamers, 0 with the mega blastas. The entire 10 man unit can be killed if it fails enough saves, even though only 4 can actually be hit by the flamer template (since they are all withing the 24 inch range of the mega blastas) ??
|
- Neva trust a Deff Skull , gitz just wanna take yur lootz
- Only good Deff Skull iz a Ded one ! |
|
 |
 |
|