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.

It used to be that you could wound models that where beyond the range as long at the weapon hit at least one.
Why did they change this? why did they get rid of one of the most basic game mechanics and add even more complexities to a turn?

Now, I admit I haven't had many chances to play since 6th dropped, but can you target models outside of your range if you roll a precision shot against a unit?

If not I'm going to strangle one of my friends.

Well, we're just restoring an old rule here. Back in 4th ed, you couldn't kill models you couldn't see, or weren't in range. In 5th ed, both of those restrictions were dropped (so long as at least one model was visible and in range).

6th ed came by and restored the LOS restriction, but not the range one. It seems that they meant to restore both, not just the one.

And I'm pretty sure that restriction still applies to precision shots. I don't see why it wouldn't.

You just can't wound them

According to what i read in BOLS, aslong as a single weapon has a range longer then that, So if you have a weapon with a 36 inch precision shot ability, and a 48 inch heavy, you can allocate it to up to 48 inches.
So yes and No.
Still, It nerfed my Stand and shoot army.

hotsauceman1 wrote:if you have a weapon with a 36 inch precision shot ability, and a 48 inch heavy, you can allocate it to up to 48 inches.

Oh yeah, I got that impression as well.

Still, not like gunlines are now second-class army lists now. They have a long way to go before assault is better than shooting.

So can you not keep a commissar alive in blobs by just putting him far enough away from enemy ranged fire? As in use him for morale purposes and not melee?

Looking through the rule book now.

Ok, So Atleast i do not have to roll different guns.
I will just put a bigger weapon in my squads.

 Necroshea wrote:
So can you not keep a commissar alive in blobs by just putting him far enough away from enemy ranged fire? As in use him for morale purposes and not melee?

Looking through the rule book now.

You still remove casualties front to back. What has changed is that you can now wound a model only if the weapons have the range to hit that model.
So for example, a squad of 5 tactical marines are shooting at a squad of guardsmen, 3 of which are within 24" of the marines. The marines score 4 wounds against the guardsmen. Under the old system, you would remove the 4 closest guardsmen to the tactical squad. Now, you only remove the first 3 guardsmen, after which point the rest of the guardsmen are out of range and the remaining wounds are lost.

I just reread the FAQ, and it's really confusing.

They start by saying that A model in the unit needs to be in range, and then, in parenthesis, they say that it has to be THE firing model.

Not quite sure how to take this.

Considering this is a shooting edition Im not surprised they added that in to dull it down a bit. However, all this "having one long ranged weapon means you can kill everyone" business is incredibly stupid, it makes no sense what-so ever.

RegalPhantom wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
So can you not keep a commissar alive in blobs by just putting him far enough away from enemy ranged fire? As in use him for morale purposes and not melee?

Looking through the rule book now.

You still remove casualties front to back. What has changed is that you can now wound a model only if the weapons have the range to hit that model.
So for example, a squad of 5 tactical marines are shooting at a squad of guardsmen, 3 of which are within 24" of the marines. The marines score 4 wounds against the guardsmen. Under the old system, you would remove the 4 closest guardsmen to the tactical squad. Now, you only remove the first 3 guardsmen, after which point the rest of the guardsmen are out of range and the remaining wounds are lost.

I'm not sure about that, but I'm getting at something else.


M------------------------------------------------------36"---------------------------------
SM ---------10"--------GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGC
M

Looking at the above illustration, the M's are marines, the S is the sergeant, the G are guardsmen, C is commissar.

The first guardsmen is within range of all the marines and the sergeant. Let's say all marines miss, except sergeant who rolls a 6 and get's a precision shot. Well from what I've been told, the commissar is fair game, even though he's way outside range of a bolt pistol. Were we doing it right?


Found this

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.

Also this

Q: Do Precision Shots have to be allocated against models in the
character’s line of sight? (p63)
A: Yes.

So if you have a missile launcher in a tactical squad, the bolters would still be able to wound everyone?

 xSPYXEx wrote:
So if you have a missile launcher in a tactical squad, the bolters would still be able to wound everyone?

I'd say no? You'd measure range on your weapons, and those within range can fire. Those not in range cannot.

Ok, this is going to add a whole lot of confusion in games now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, this is going to add a whole lot of confusion in games now.

Why. You can only allocate wounds to stuff as far away as the longest range weapon in the unit.

Simple. Weapon range remains unchanged.

I think I sorta get it.

If a target model is out of range of all firing models, they cannot be touched

If a target model is in range of at least one firing model in a unit, and at least one target model is in range of a firing model with precision strike, you can effectively hit the original target with precision strike because it's within range of one of you're weapons.

So basically let's say you have a large blob of targets. Your unit consists of a character w/ bolt pistol and precision strike, and a guy with a lascannon. One target is within range of the laspistol, and the furthest target model is within range of the lascannon. Because of that, you can use precision strike on any target in that blob.

Wounds can be allocated to any model that is within range of the weapon with longest range as long as the short ranged weapon can target something.

I understand it, but man that's confusing. At least if what I'm thinking is correct.

TheCaptain wrote:You can only allocate wounds to stuff as far away as the longest range weapon in the unit.

But it's not that clear cut.

Take the FAQ:

can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range of any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted models are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)?

Look at just the underlined text, and you see the confusion.

What determines where the wounds can be allocated, ANY shooting model or THE shooting model?

It looks like they're going both ways with this.

The FAQ was poorly written, and will be re-FAQ'd.

Ok guys, not hard, roll the shorter ranged weapons first, then the longer ranged weapon. If the shooter doesn't want to do this let them as it may leave some models "out of range" of the shorter weapons that they chose to fire second.

Barrywise wrote:
Ok guys, not hard, roll the shorter ranged weapons first, then the longer ranged weapon. If the shooter doesn't want to do this let them as it may leave some models "out of range" of the shorter weapons that they chose to fire second.

According to the rule book, all wounds caused go to a pool. The last thing you do after firing weapons is allocate wounds. I don't think the order of what you shoot with matters.

Correct. This is about applying wounds, not the wounding itself.

It feels like they were trying to fix the problem of assigning wounds to models that the weapon causing the wounds couldn't shoot at, but instead they just managed to muddle it.

 Ailaros wrote:
What determines where the wounds can be allocated, ANY shooting model or THE shooting model?

It's very clearly "any", you're just forgetting how possessives work.

model's = singular possessive

models' = plural possessive

Conclusion: the second underlined statement very clearly refers back to the "any of the shooting models" previously mentioned. There's no ambiguity at all.

Don't we have a multipage thread on this in ymdc?

 pretre wrote:
Don't we have a multipage thread on this in ymdc?

Yes, but GD hates all other sub forums. That's why rules and background posts pile up here.

Back on topic, my group is just going to play it like the book says until this gets cleared up in an FAQ for the FAQ. QW, why do you hate grammar and proofreading?

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

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

 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

 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.

pretre wrote:Don't we have a multipage thread on this in ymdc?

Yeah, you're right. I'll post about this over there now.

And seriously, syntax arguments are the weakest thing ever. Does anyone really believe that GW is secretly trying to send signals by where they put their apostrophes?

You're entering conspiracy-theory levels of crazy here. GW uses words, not punctuation alone to convey what they mean. No use trying to read into things that aren't there.

 Ailaros wrote:
And seriously, syntax arguments are the weakest thing ever. Does anyone really believe that GW is secretly trying to send signals by where they put their apostrophes?

No, I just think that GW knows how to use correct grammar, and when they use an unambiguous plural noun that it is actually a plural, not a typo.

You're entering conspiracy-theory levels of crazy here. GW uses words, not punctuation alone to convey what they mean. No use trying to read into things that aren't there.

No, you just don't understand the very simple difference between plural possessive and singular possessive. The fact that you don't know how to do possessives correctly doesn't mean it's somehow a conspiracy to read a simple sentence exactly as it's written. Seriously, this is what you're trying to argue:

A unit of 10 marines fire, and the models cause 6 hits.

You're doing the equivalent of arguing that "models" could possibly mean a single model, and accusing anyone who points out that it's an obvious and unambiguous plural of looking for "secret signals".