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.

Coredump lets make no mistake, weapons in real life DO have a 'maximum effective range' otherwise what's the point of having snipers if you can snipe someone at great distances with a pistol??

Yes the concept of abstracts in order to make the game playable is bearable but there SHOULD be some logic specially in this of all editions this one has been by far the one most invested in giving us a more 'realistic, cinematic, down to earth'. With several mechanics implemented to make it so

I also understand that the FAQ is a nerf. But it's a nerf that doesn't make sense. If you are going to make ranges matter for wound allocation then you should not do it half-assed. That's the point.

And for the guy who keeps falling back on 'this is war in 40k not present day' I am wondering if you've read the 40k lore and books...most of what we understand today applies. Also the universe is created by people OF today, we don't have futuristic aliens creating Games Workshop and coming up with a whole new set of scientific guidelines and rules that makes all notion of current common sense baseless. No. We dont. So excuse me for looking at this and thinking 'this is a stupid rule no matter how you look at it' the mechanics as explained, detailed and display in the books specially on imperial weaponry is very close to what we have today. While i can agree that perhaps the eldar have a developed a special kind of flamer that breaks all laws of physics and has infinite range when paired with other weapons. It is a tough sell when you make the same arguemennt for an imperial bolter paired with a flamer. Bolters are pretty much high tech automatic rifles

 Akaiyou wrote:
If you are going to make ranges matter for wound allocation then you should not do it half-assed.

Doing it "full assed" would be far too much of a hassle to be worth anybody's time just to fix an occasional weird situation.

Hey, look, I've got ten models firing at ten models, and every single firing model has range to a different subset of the target unit. Since we want to make absolutely sure that nobody wounds outside their range, we have to resolve every shot individually. No thanks.

Does it ever specify that flamers and other template weapons actually have a range? They can hit a charging unit at 12 inches for example from overwatch.

 screaminskull wrote:
Does it ever specify that flamers and other template weapons actually have a range? They can hit a charging unit at 12 inches for example from overwatch.

That's an overwatch specific rule in regards to template weapons, though, and wouldn't apply in a shooting phase. Template's range is "template" which means anything fitting under the warhammer approved templates (8'5" inches max range, yeah?) from the base of the model shooting it.

 Akaiyou wrote:
Coredump lets make no mistake, weapons in real life DO have a 'maximum effective range' otherwise what's the point of having snipers if you can snipe someone at great distances with a pistol??

Sure they do. But the bullets don't just stop at that effective range.

Back when I was in uniform, we trained at 100m, 200m and 300m on the range, 300m being the maximum effective range of the SLR. But at 300m, that SLR was still capable of putting a round right through a half inch thick steel plate. That's still going to leave a mark on someone standing 350m away...

Effective range just defines the maximum range at which the average shooter is still likely to hit and damage what they are aiming at. Longer range shots (whether through luck or having time to line up the shot, or just being a better than average shooter) are still possible.

... specially in this of all editions this one has been by far the one most invested in giving us a more 'realistic, cinematic, down to earth'....

The what now?

6th edition is in no way even remotely the most 'realistic' edition.

Warms the heart to see another SLR era chap !

Just to add to that, the M60 SFMG was quoted as having effective fire out to 800m but harassing fire to nearly double that. That's because it wasn't very accurate beyond 800m but the bullet would most certainly kill or wound you if it did hit.

The use of the term SLR made me stop for a moment, sometimes it is the little things that make you miss home, and I never even touched the thing:
Just the tales from old vets that would rather it over the Aus Steyr because of that over-penetration.

I want to add to what Insaniak stated:
That is only considering weapons that have an effective range and kill through kinetic force. Akaiyou's statement becomes even more questionable when you start looking at the actual 'warheads' being delivered with these weapons, because sometimes it is literally explosive warheads in a bullet. Lasguns, the joke weapon of all 40k's weapons, is a perfect example of why realistic effective ranges do not work on the table top, and an abstract is used in it's stead. Light intense enough to cause casualties on the field wouldn't suddenly become harmless half a inch further then the documented 'effective range' of such a weapon.

Realistic rules for effective range where too complicated, realistic rules when it comes to lethal range are completely out of the question.

I can assure you that the SS109 round of the F88 more than sorts out the over penetration problem.

By the science a Lascannon will lose it's power by the square of the distance it travels, they lose their power far quicker than bullets or as you point out quite rightly explosive shells.

But then again 40k and physics are pretty much mutually exclusive

Uptopdownunder wrote:
By the science a Lascannon will lose it's power by the square of the distance it travels, they lose their power far quicker than bullets or as you point out quite rightly explosive shells.

Umm... there is no science when talking about a 40K Lascannon...

Science Fiction, yes, Science, no as we can not duplicate what a Lascannon is supposed to be capable of.

Did you not read the last sentence of my post?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Did you not read the last sentence of my post?

I did, my point still stands.

True but it stands as pointless repetition.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
True but it stands as pointless repetition.

It had a point.

To make sure people that missed the last line of your post, didn't actually believe that could happen. I was reconfirming the last line of your post in case anyone glossed over it.

I went for D.
The faq + rules are very clear you can kill the models in range for the weapons per group in the wound pool. There is a group in the pool for every str+ap so if your bigmek had a weapon whit same str+ap but whit a larger ranges it would work not whit 2 completely different weapons

Why do people have issues with this rule but not Line of Sight? Everyone in the unit can see one model in the target unit, but the one guy with a missile launcher can see the whole thing? The whole unit can be killed.

All the FAQ did was bring the range limitations (previously, there were none) into equilibrium with the LOS rules.

Also Odin, incorrect. There is ONE wound pool, with different groupings of STR and AP.

Incorrect. There is a single wound pool, reread the rules. You the have groups within the wound pool....

odin wrote:
I went for D.
The faq + rules are very clear you can kill the models in range for the weapons per group in the wound pool. There is a group in the pool for every str+ap so if your bigmek had a weapon whit same str+ap but whit a larger ranges it would work not whit 2 completely different weapons

Except, D is not at all correct.

The faq + rules are very clear you can kill the models in range for the weapons that you fire in the shooting unit.

so if there are 4 Heavy Flamers (Str 5 AP4) and 1 Bolter (Str 4 AP5) you can wound models up to 24 inches away from the bolter even if these wounds were generated by the flamer weapons.

I cannot find in the BRB what you all are talking about. Where in the FAQ and BRB can I find what this is about? Thank you.

The BRB page 16 "out of range" rule has been entirely replaced by a BRB FAQ rule on "Out of Range". If you search the FAQ for that phrase you shoudl be able to find it.

I cannot find it in the BRB FAQ. What page and where on the page is it? What version of the FAQ are you looking at. I am looking at 40K RULEBOOK v1.5_September 13.pdf.

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.

coupled with the rules on page 16, limits wounds from any model to only those within range of at least one firing weapon.

So as an example a Tyranid Prime with Warger Miasma cannon 36" range attached to an Exocrine (Bio-plasma Cannon) 24" range.

The Bio-Plasma will reach what the Prime can shoot based on those rules?

Assuming the Prime can actually join the Exocrine (I have no idea what sort of unit options the Exocrine has) then yes, wounds from the Exocrine's weapons can be pulled from up to the range of the Miasma Cannon.

Note that the Exocrine still needs go be in range of the enemy unit to shoot in the first place, though. The extra range from the Prime would only count for casualty removal.

Roger. I understand now. Thank you. I thought it boosted the range of the weapon but what it is boosting it the range of wound allocations to that of the longest range weapon in the unit.

Just by the way, you can't join the Prime to an Exocrine as an Exocrine unit always consists of a single model.

Oh yeah, Thanks again. It was just theory craft anyways.

DarkerSavant wrote:
Roger. I understand now. Thank you. I thought it boosted the range of the weapon but what it is boosting it the range of wound allocations to that of the longest range weapon in the unit.

It actually reduces the wound allocation range compared to the older, initial rule book rule. Now you can only allocate out to the longest range gun in the unit, whereas before as long as you started in range you could allocate a wound any model in the unit, with no need to further check the range of your weapon.

I've been wondering about this myself after seeing some tournament players add Sniper Rifles to IG units. I guess it's time to paint my snipers!

What's very weird to me is that while there is strong concencus for a and c that is quite new to the rules. I know that 3rd and 4th edition you checked range for each model and each weapon seperatly and each weapon could only kill what was in range. It was not even really slower.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The BRB page 16 "out of range" rule has been entirely replaced by a BRB FAQ rule on "Out of Range". If you search the FAQ for that phrase you shoudl be able to find it.

This isn't actually true; and I think it is why so many people get confused about the FAQ ruling.

Before the FAQ every gun had an infinite distance it could allocate wounds, but this was because of the rules on p.15 about allocating wounds.

The rules on p.16 (which are still in effect) say that if you are close enough to be in range, those shots will still count, even if some of those models die from other shots.
This is not changed by the FAQ ruling.