Switch Theme:

Shooting Shenanigans - What say you?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which of the results are correct?
Result A
Result B
Result C
Result D

View results
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.




Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




New York

So after a tournament at my local GW store me and the other top placers got into a discussion about a particular rule, and while i begrudginly agreed to their interpretation, something about it just feels sooo wrong. I wanted to ask and find out how the rest of the 40k community plays it or what their thoughts are.

Scenario:
We have a unit of 10 Burna Boyz. Attacking a conga-line of 30 Termagants. Assume they are lined up bumper to bumper.

The burna boyz use their flamers (8" long) attacking from the front of the line and each of them cover the front 3-4 gaunts with their flamers. Getting a total of 30-40 hits, which work out to be 20 wounds on the Termagants.

So what is the result?

Result A: Only the front 4 termagants are killed as the others are outside of the weapons max range as per Rulebook FAQ
Result B: 20 termagants are killed regardless of how far they are from the shooting weapon's max range.


So here me and the guys agree that the burna boys can only kill the models that they can reach. But...then comes the variable.

If the same scenario plays out, with the addition of a Big Mek w/Shokk Attakk Gun (60" range) joined to the Burna Unit.
The burna boys attack the conga-line that stretches a great distance. What is the result here?

Result C: The addition of the Big Mek's longer range weapon, increases the kill zone of the flamers thus 20 termagants are killed as long as they are within 60" of the unit shooting (burna boyz)

Result D: The burna boyz can only kill the models within their weapon's max range, thus they can only kill 4 models max. While the Shokk Attakk Gun is resolved separately and can deal damage up to it's max range.



This example isn't limited to flamer weapons. Replace the Burna Boyz with a squad of Slugga Boyz with 3 Big Shootas, can the Sluggas deal damage to models up to 36" away if they can reach at least 1 model in the unit?

I'm gonna make a multiple choice poll here, but feel free to weigh in on your thoughts. Does having a weapon with a longer range in the unit extend the kill zone for EVERYONE in the unit that has range to at least one enemy model?




1. Tyranids - 15,000 pts
2. Chaos Space Marines - 7,100 pts
3. Space Marines - 6,000 pts
4. Orks - 5,900 pts
5. Dark Angels - 4,300 pts
6. Necrons - 4,600 pts
7. Grey Knights - 3,200 pts
8. Eldar - 3,400 pts
9. Blood Angels - 3,200 pts
10. Chaos Daemons - 3,200 pts
11. Tau Empire - 3,000 pts
12. Space Wolves - 2,400 pts 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Everyone likes to moan about the extreme examples, but calculating kill zones for every model firing in normal situations would be such a pain in the neck that it's just not worth it.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






A and C. It's "unrealistic", but it's indisputably correct. The maximum range for casualty removal is defined by the farthest model that ANY model in the shooting unit can hit. So yes, this makes it very helpful to add models with long-range weapons to a short-range squad so you don't waste any wounds.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

A and C.

Did someone at the tournament rule it a different way? That would be a gross oversight, if so.

Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in au
Hungry Little Ripper




Melbourne

RAW Unfortunately A & C as Peregrine pointed out. But my group uses the A & D formula, as we only tend to play friendly/more fluffy type games.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The funny thing is that the inconsistency here was created by the faq 'clarification' that limits casualties to the max range of the unit's weapons... If they had left the rules for determining range alone, we would just be removing casualties from the unit until we run or of models and having longer ranged weapons tagged on wouldn't make any difference.


 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

Heh, looking at the result so far, it seems there is absolutely NO confusion on this rule.

Where's one of those guys who comes in with a hilariously farfetched conclusion based on an imagined loophole in wording?

My personal favorite is "that part of the sentence is flavor text."


20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in au
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

Yeah, this is pretty clear and we're bound to have stuff like this happen in a game abstracted enough to to play at this scale.

niv-mizzet: My new favourite is "The answers are there in the rules, you just have to want to find them."

 Ailaros wrote:
You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.

"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





A & C.

Was this a trick question?

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

I actually have run into several opponents who do not believe that C would be accurate. They claim that flamers can only inflict wounds to the maximum range of the flamer, regardless of other attached weapons.

Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

Up to longest range of the models fired, So yes A and C, assuming the weapon with the longer range was also fired.

It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in us
Using Inks and Washes




St. George, Utah

niv-mizzet wrote:
Heh, looking at the result so far, it seems there is absolutely NO confusion on this rule.

Where's one of those guys who comes in with a hilariously farfetched conclusion based on an imagined loophole in wording?

My personal favorite is "that part of the sentence is flavor text."

I had to give you an exalt for that.

The way I go about it is kind of the same way I go about a lot of things in life. "Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck. It's probably a duck." Looks like a rule, reads like a rule, is capable of being played reasonbly without confusion as though it's a rule, it's probably a rule!
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






A and C.

B is forbidden due to the FAQ.

D has no rules to differentiate wound pools based upon weapon range or apply them based upon weapon range, if multiple weapons with the same wound pool had different ranges, we have no mechanism to differentiate them.

That is why we have mekboyz in burna boyz! Adding one makes the whole unit work better.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in lv
Dark Angels Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries




As per usual, I didn't read the whole thread, but it is not important to the my arguemtn.
Small intro-just as 6th ed. hit we had this argument, that it will screw the assault(le;ts not get into this debate now), if the wounds(from shoting) are alloced to the closest model first. However, it seemed completely logical,right?

To an "amateur"-ofcourse. Now comes the golden thought I read-when designing(aka. thinking/interpreting rules) it is incredibly important to view the battlefield as a living organism, not static figures(see, narrative gameplay wins ;D).

So, that would me that instead of waiting to get taost, the termagants would be charging forward, the burna boyz would be doing....ork things...yeah, conclusion I think is pretty straight forward.

That is why I voted for B. Ofc., some rules in the BRB can override this(as those are designed while thinking about static figurine kind of play), but honestly, I would bloody ignore that.my2c
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

vWreN wrote:
So, that would me that instead of waiting to get taost, the termagants would be charging forward, the burna boyz would be doing....ork things...yeah, conclusion I think is pretty straight forward.

That is why I voted for B. Ofc., some rules in the BRB can override this(as those are designed while thinking about static figurine kind of play), but honestly, I would bloody ignore that.my2c

And without the rulebook FAQ, B would have been correct. The shooting rules in the rulebook only tell us to measure range to the closest model in the enemy unit. There was no requirement in the original 6th edition rules to check range to each model int he enemy unit in order to determine who could be a casualty... You just needed to check if the unit was in range.

The FAQ changed that (Sorry, clarified that...) by adding a caveat that you could only remove models that were in range of at least one of the firing models.

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Yeah, Rulebook RAW was B until the FAQ.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





vWreN wrote:
As per usual, I didn't read the whole thread, but it is not important to the my arguemtn.

In the future, please do read the thread - it's both polite and important.

That is why I voted for B. Ofc., some rules in the BRB can override this(as those are designed while thinking about static figurine kind of play), but honestly, I would bloody ignore that.my2c

Not just other rules in the BRB, but the BRB FAQ significantly changed this rule.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in lv
Dark Angels Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries




Yeah, well, as I said, I chose to ignore the BRB,as I would prefer the dynamic aproach to the game, since 6th edition is static and boring.
   
Made in au
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

Then what are you even doing here?

 Ailaros wrote:
You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.

"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




vWreN wrote:
Yeah, well, as I said, I chose to ignore the BRB,as I would prefer the dynamic aproach to the game, since 6th edition is static and boring.

Maybe read the tenets of the forum you ar eposting in then. Avoids OT posts...
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




New York

I was the 'fool' arguing that D makes no damn sense at all. For those that asked 'where are those that disagree'

The issue did NOT come up at the tournament, it was an after tournament discussion between the top placers (myself and 2 others) where one of them brought up the issue and to my recollection the rulebook FAQ was worded differently (Option C)

The example in the FAQ after re-reading it, even though the prior text seemed to support option B, the example just seemed to scream out option C to me.

In that it stated 'half the models are in range and half are not' and i was applying this on a per model basis (incorrectly, but logical)

The idea that in a real life scenario, if you had a SWAT team of 5 men, 4 of them holding flamethrowers and 1 of them with a sniper rifle. And somehow magically the flamethrowers would be able to murder people up to the max range of the sniper rifle, makes no damn sense and smells of WRONG no matter how i look at it.

Yet alas the rules do indeed allow for this nonsense, and i conceded the point after some discussion and allowing myself to remember that 40k has a lot of slowed ass rules that simply make no sense, and loopholes that get abused in the craziest ways. This being clearly the former

This thread was simply to see if I am the only one that wasn't aware or that hadn't encountered an opponent pulling this sort of thing (correct as they may be) until that discussion the issue simply hadn't arised for me

1. Tyranids - 15,000 pts
2. Chaos Space Marines - 7,100 pts
3. Space Marines - 6,000 pts
4. Orks - 5,900 pts
5. Dark Angels - 4,300 pts
6. Necrons - 4,600 pts
7. Grey Knights - 3,200 pts
8. Eldar - 3,400 pts
9. Blood Angels - 3,200 pts
10. Chaos Daemons - 3,200 pts
11. Tau Empire - 3,000 pts
12. Space Wolves - 2,400 pts 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Daemonic Herald





 Akaiyou wrote:
The idea that in a real life scenario, if you had a SWAT team of 5 men, 4 of them holding flamethrowers and 1 of them with a sniper rifle. And somehow magically the flamethrowers would be able to murder people up to the max range of the sniper rifle, makes no damn sense and smells of WRONG no matter how i look at it.

40k isn't a real life scenario or trying to be even a decent simulation of one. If you don't make assumptions on how the game should work its easier to understand the rules.
   
Made in ax
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





 CrownAxe wrote:
 Akaiyou wrote:
The idea that in a real life scenario, if you had a SWAT team of 5 men, 4 of them holding flamethrowers and 1 of them with a sniper rifle. And somehow magically the flamethrowers would be able to murder people up to the max range of the sniper rifle, makes no damn sense and smells of WRONG no matter how i look at it.

40k isn't a real life scenario or trying to be even a decent simulation of one. If you don't make assumptions on how the game should work its easier to understand the rules.


Rules should follow some form of logic though, even if they are abstracts.

A Dark Angel fell on a watcher in the Dark Shroud silently chanted Vengance on the Fallen Angels to never be Unforgiven 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




And this FAQ is a more accurate representation of real life; the original rule you took no note of range past the initial closest to closest measurements, now you have to factor in total range.

Anything less abstract and youre needing to create new rules to handle multiple wound groups
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Rules should follow some form of logic though, even if they are abstracts.

From a rules standpoint sure.

From a Modern day real world standpoint, not at all...

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/26 20:39:10


"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.
 
   
Made in ax
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





 DeathReaper wrote:
Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Rules should follow some form of logic though, even if they are abstracts.

From a rules standpoint sure.

From a Modern day real world standpoint, not at all...

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.


Still dosent change that the rule has to follow a logical pattern, flamers have a limited short range, if they want to extend that range they should have to buy a uppgrade item/fee for the flamer.

Saying a bolter did it, just makes it a stupid rule.

A Dark Angel fell on a watcher in the Dark Shroud silently chanted Vengance on the Fallen Angels to never be Unforgiven 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Rules should follow some form of logic though, even if they are abstracts.

From a rules standpoint sure.

From a Modern day real world standpoint, not at all...

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.


Still dosent change that the rule has to follow a logical pattern, flamers have a limited short range, if they want to extend that range they should have to buy a uppgrade item/fee for the flamer.

Saying a bolter did it, just makes it a stupid rule.

Why is it a "stupid rule"?

Because of your perceptions of 'Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world'

Take that out and the rule is just fine.

"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.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The original rule int he rulebook was even finer.

Adding the requirement to check range to every model in the enemy unit is adding needless complication for no real good reason.

 
   
Made in bg
Cosmic Joe





Bulgaria

Provided the Mek actually fired his weapon the answer is C.
Now this may seems silly but if you have a looksie around this section of dakka you'll find out RAW is silly quite often.


EDIT: The way you formatted the original question makes both A and C correct.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/27 06:20:57



Nosebiter wrote:
Codex Space Marine is renamed as Codex Counts As Because I Dont Like To Loose And Gw Hates My Army.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Any use of 'range' is also silly.

Why is a bolter just as accurate at 2" as 23"?
Why is it just as accurate at 23.9", but will *never* hit anything at 24.1"?
How come being a better shot, does not let you hit things farther away?

Instead of flamers, look at a pistol. Why is there some 'magic wall' that means the bullets just fall down at 12"?

[Editor's note: I understand why the above works the way it does, just using them as illustrations of some of the abstractions needed to make a game playable]


As Insaniak points out, before the FAQ, flamers were already allowed to kill to an infinite range. With the FAQ, the flamers can only kill to the range of the other guns in the unit.
The FAQ *nerfed* flamers, it did not make them stronger.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/27 20:37:27


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: