Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Typhus on January 16, 2013, 10:53:35 AM
-
And some of them are doozies. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?start=2&articleCatId=&aId=3400019&categoryId=1000018&catId=&pIndex=1&communityArticleCatId=§ion=&singlePageMode=true
"Q: If your Warlor’s Warlord Trait confers a specific ability to a unit
or units in your army, is this ability always immediately lost when
the Warlord is killed? (p111)
A: Yes. Further, if the Warlord Trait conferred a special rule
that allows an unusual method of deployment from Reserves
(such as conferring Infiltrate to allow a unit to Outflank)
that special rule is immediately lost and the unit must deploy
from Reserves in the normal fashion."
-
And some of them are doozies. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?start=2&articleCatId=&aId=3400019&categoryId=1000018&catId=&pIndex=1&communityArticleCatId=§ion=&singlePageMode=true
"Q: If your Warlor’s Warlord Trait confers a specific ability to a unit
or units in your army, is this ability always immediately lost when
the Warlord is killed? (p111)
A: Yes. Further, if the Warlord Trait conferred a special rule
that allows an unusual method of deployment from Reserves
(such as conferring Infiltrate to allow a unit to Outflank)
that special rule is immediately lost and the unit must deploy
from Reserves in the normal fashion."
That warlord trait thing IS huge
Some other good ones are they finally confirmed you CAN overwatch from inside a vehicle
Models in a unit cannot be allocated wounds if they are out of range from the firing weapon
-
And they answered my question about darkshrouds having stealth
-
Ahhh, one of my big "idunno's" was resolved.
About vector strikes:
No cover saves are
allowed against these hits.
Suck it Space Marines.
-
And... in a related story... they classified the heldrake's maw as being a turret weapon? This means it has 360 degree arc of fire correct??? Crikey... these things just got twice as sick as they were.
-
Ahhh, one of my big "idunno's" was resolved.
About vector strikes:
No cover saves are
allowed against these hits.
Suck it Space Marines.
That and the turret thing are an awful ruling, in my opinion. GW seems to really want to remove a lot of smart defensive options...."buy more models! Paint them! Now pick them up off the board, they're gone!"
Models in a unit cannot be allocated wounds if they are out of range from the firing weapon
That one's going to cause a lot of arguments, mark my words.
-
Models in a unit cannot be allocated wounds if they are out of range from the firing weapon
That one's going to cause a lot of arguments, mark my words.
You ain't kidding, i can hear it now.
Big units with multiple types of guns with multiple ranges are going to be a nightmare to figure out and will just slow down gameplay.
-
Interesting point, the DA iPAD codex, didn't need many of the updates provided in the FAQ, they were there already, but, there were a couple...
we'll see how long it takes to get the update out..
Cheers,
Alan
-
Models in a unit cannot be allocated wounds if they are out of range from the firing weapon
That one's going to cause a lot of arguments, mark my words.
You ain't kidding, i can hear it now.
Big units with multiple types of guns with multiple ranges are going to be a nightmare to figure out and will just slow down gameplay.
Actually I don't think it's as confusing as you are fearing... here's the actual quote:
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.
The key phrase is "any of the shooting models". You only check whether a given targe model is within range of ANY firing model. If it is, then it can have wounds allocated to it. No need to track WHICH wounds came from WHICH firing model.
-
Models in a unit cannot be allocated wounds if they are out of range from the firing weapon
That one's going to cause a lot of arguments, mark my words.
You ain't kidding, i can hear it now.
Big units with multiple types of guns with multiple ranges are going to be a nightmare to figure out and will just slow down gameplay.
Actually I don't think it's as confusing as you are fearing... here's the actual quote:
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.
The key phrase is "any of the shooting models". You only check whether a given targe model is within range of ANY firing model. If it is, then it can have wounds allocated to it. No need to track WHICH wounds came from WHICH firing model.
I agree with that interpretation, but again, just because it seems clear you doesn't mean it won't cause a lot of arguments.
Adding to the problem is that it is proposed as the counter to a negative. (there's probably a specific linguistic term for that) If wounds can't be applied to a model that was out of range of ANY of the firing unit's (not models's really, why are they making this harder than it has to be?) weapons, does that mean that wounds can be applied to a model if SOME of the weapons could reach that model, even beyond the number of wounds inflicted by that particular weapon.
It doesn't, really. That's probably what they meant (maybe), but it's not what they wrote.
And it's worth noting this is actually in contradiction to what is written in the BRB (which has you only check range to initially fire, not wound, but has you check LOS for both), meaning it really should be an errata, not a FAQ.
-
add in a missile launcher or a Las cannon to those tac sqauds and bam you wont ever be ourof range have fun killing models with bolter fire at 48 inches if the sqauds is spread that far.
-
add in a missile launcher or a Las cannon to those tac sqauds and bam you wont ever be ourof range have fun killing models with bolter fire at 48 inches if the sqauds is spread that far.
You still have to be in range of at least one model in the unit to be able to fire your weapon(each model).
-
OK yeah, I can see the arguments starting already, so I guess it's indisputable :)
BUt - no need to worry about 48" range bolters. This FAQ applies only to wound allocation. It has nothing to do with determining which models can fire. To fire, an individual model still needs to have both range and LOS to a model in the target unit.
-
Nope. All it says is if they can take wounds. If the unit is spread out and there are models fartehr then 24 inches if you have a long range wep in sqaud then bolters can kill targets farther then 24....
-
Oh, yeah, you're right there. I thought you were suggesting something else - that all the models in a unit can fire, as long as any of the models are in range (which is not the case).
Basically, what this FAQ does is to apply exactly the same wound allocation rules to range that were already in effect for LOS. There was already a rule that said that if a model was out of sight of all firing models, no wounds could be allocated to it. There wasn't a corresponding rule about range. Now there is.
As long as people don't get thrown by the wording here, the rule makes total sense.
-
What were are really talking about is the not uncommon scenarios where a marine squad with bolters and a heavy bolter (or anything else longer ranged) fires on a unit and only part of the unit is within 24". Can the bolter wounds be allocated to just that part of the unit, or all of them? It's not clear from this FAQ.
The simpler answer that leads to less paperwork is to say that yes the bolters can be applied to everything. But then, the previous answer was "if you had range to the unit, you had range, period" and that was the simplest of all.
Nope. All it says is if they can take wounds. If the unit is spread out and there are models fartehr then 24 inches if you have a long range wep in sqaud then bolters can kill targets farther then 24....
Again, that's possibly what they intended, but it's not really what it says. It's actually really bad grammar (or at least poor logic).
-
Can the bolter wounds be allocated to just that part of the unit, or all of them? It's not clear from this FAQ
Actually I disagree it is very clear in this regard. Andalucian already posted this and you agreed to it already. :)
Actually I don't think it's as confusing as you are fearing... here's the actual quote:
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.
The key phrase is "any of the shooting models". You only check whether a given targe model is within range of ANY firing model. If it is, then it can have wounds allocated to it. No need to track WHICH wounds came from WHICH firing model.
-
Can the bolter wounds be allocated to just that part of the unit, or all of them? It's not clear from this FAQ
Actually I disagree it is very clear in this regard. Andalucian already posted this and you agreed to it already. :)
I did not.
If wounds can't be applied to a model that was out of range of ANY of the firing unit's (not models's really, why are they making this harder than it has to be?) weapons, does that mean that wounds can be applied to a model if SOME of the weapons could reach that model, even beyond the number of wounds inflicted by that particular weapon?
It doesn't, really. That's probably what they meant (maybe), but it's not what they wrote.
Now, what you could do, is argue that since the ONLY thing being specifically forbade here is that you can't allocate wounds if NONE of the unit's (or possibly it's by model, see, that's problematic too) weapons reach the model, is say it defaults to what it says in the BRB, which is essentially "if the firing model was in range of any part of the unit, it can kill any model it has LOS to", which would mean that yeah, the shorter range wounds can be allocated out to the range of the longer range weapon.
That wound be my ruling, if I had to. But it's totally unclear. It's not even really clear what they meant. You have to go through several Logic (as in the college class) steps just to get there. I'd really prefer they just used unambiguous language to start with. At least the original rule was clear.
-
Thats where your wrong bud. The FAQ specifically is talking of wounds
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)
The bold parts explain how the answer isbeing derived. So for initial shooting purposes for a model to SHOOT yes they have to be in range. HOWEVER wounds can be allocated to models as long as the model is in range for the WOUND POOL. So if the half of the unit is out of range of the bolters in normal cases they couldnt die per the FAQ. BUT if you add in a long range weapon that other half of the unit is then added to the WOUND POOL and henceforth overkill wounds from the bolters can indeed kill lobger range targets.
-
Thats where your wrong bud. The FAQ specifically is talking of wounds
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)
The bold parts explain how the answer isbeing derived. So for initial shooting purposes for a model to SHOOT yes they have to be in range. HOWEVER wounds can be allocated to models as long as the model is in range for the WOUND POOL. So if the half of the unit is out of range of the bolters in normal cases they couldnt die per the FAQ. BUT if you add in a long range weapon that other half of the unit is then added to the WOUND POOL and henceforth overkill wounds from the bolters can indeed kill lobger range targets.
I think we have a winner.
The word ANY of the shooting models when to hit rolls were made does it for me.
A good arguement to add a heavy bolter or something to your squads
-
Thats where your wrong bud. The FAQ specifically is talking of wounds
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)
The bold parts explain how the answer isbeing derived. So for initial shooting purposes for a model to SHOOT yes they have to be in range. HOWEVER wounds can be allocated to models as long as the model is in range for the WOUND POOL. So if the half of the unit is out of range of the bolters in normal cases they couldnt die per the FAQ. BUT if you add in a long range weapon that other half of the unit is then added to the WOUND POOL and henceforth overkill wounds from the bolters can indeed kill lobger range targets.
Yes, I understand we're talking about allocated wounds. Yes, I understand what you are saying. No, that doesn't change any of my answers (which mostly, I think has us in the same place, but through a complicated set of steps, and I don't think it's clear)
If you want to be super, SUPER technical about it, I think a heavy bolter would be a different Wound Pool than a bolter, because it's AP 4. Or maybe that's only true if some of the targets have 4+ save. So do we have to break down each wound pool by the weapon range to?
Anyway, see what I mean? Maybe you don't. But yes, I see what you're saying and not i don't think it's clear, even though in the end i come to the same conclusion (sorta).
-
I think we have a winner.
The word ANY of the shooting models when to hit rolls were made does it for me.
Again, just because if NOT ANY (none) = NO, it does not mean that ANY (some) = YES.
I'm trying to be as clear as possible.
-
Can we play warhammer now?
-
No warhammer for you 1 year!
-
Can we play warhammer now?
I think we're only allowed to play if some of our models are on the same table, assuming any of the models are not on a different table. ???
;) ;D
-
What about apoc games?
-
I was just coming to grips with what I didn't understand in 6th Edition, and now this FAQ'ing shit.
-
Oh, it almost becomes less clear every time GW opens its mouth, it's great.
-
did they miss Ravenwing Attack Squad? Its base point cost is 80 for three bikers, 3 more is 81 if i do my math right. Is any one else getting that? Doesnt make sence to have the add on be a point higher than the basic cost of 3
-
Yeah, I noticed that. I dunno, would you rather each extra biker cost 26.66 pts? The basic squad cost 81? *shrug*
-
Range limiting allocation seems clear to me. I'm with Troy, Andalucien, etc. It's a bit funny that one firing model with a longer range can extend the range for eligible casualties for his whole squad, but then, shooting has always had some abstractions. And this actually gives squads with the option of a longer-ranged heavy weapon (like Tac Marines) an advantage over Grey Hunters and GK Strike squads, who all cap out at 24".
-
*sigh*, no one understands me.
-
I'm pretty sure I understand you. You're confused about the rules if you think that wounds from the squad heavy bolter form a different wound pool from wounds caused by their bolters, though. They're different groups in the same wound pool.
-
At the beginning of shooting, wouldn't the "wound pool" have to start within the range of the bolters original range before you start tallying it?
-
I'm pretty sure I understand you. You're confused about the rules if you think that wounds from the squad heavy bolter form a different wound pool from wounds caused by their bolters, though. They're different groups in the same wound pool.
That's a bit of a distinction without a difference, but yeah, I guess it means we don't have to worry about that technicality. In any case, I only brought it up because Troy made a big deal out of, I think thinking that it affected my logic. Not the point at all.
-
Just an FYI -- I havent begun to make a big deal about anything yet. When that happens you'll definitely know.
-
"mentioned as if it was important?" I didn't think you were mad.
-
So according to this new rule lets say you are shooting at a 3x10 column of thirty Ork boyz. Your unit however only has enough range to reach the 9 boyz in the first three rows. Even if you do twenty wounds only 9 boyz would be removed as casualties?
-
Yes.
But I want to know why you are shooting at Square Base units with 40k models.
-
Ease of visualization, I suspect.
-
OK, let's move on to other things the FAQs covered.
*Coteaz does not keep Hammerhand when getting BRB book, powers. Which is the right answer, I think, but much in doubt, and Sam had actually ruled the other way, and I was abusing that.
*They apparently can not even simple proof-read worth crap, because almost every Special Character in the DA codex had something wrong with their wargear, models had a special rules they did not have, options were missing from unit entries, etc. I mean really, this was extra special amateur hour.
*Noise marines can take twice as man blastmasters, which is a pretty huge freaking jump, since that was bout half the reason to take them.
*Vindicare shots can now trump Look OUt Sirs!, which is good, since that's pretty much his whole point. (aside from auto penning everything)
*Really, people were asking if infantry could go inside a nightscythe? That was frequently asked?
*They clarified a few of the rules around Storm Raven's, but nothing surprising
-
Yes.
But I want to know why you are shooting at Square Base units with 40k models.
You know how orcs are. Sometimes they get bored and wander off into other games. Back to the Ork column lets you had one weapon with a different profile that had enough range to reach everyone and you manage to do 3 more wounds with it you would still only be able to remove 12 models as casualties?
-
If the firing unit has any weapon firing which can reach the back guys, all the wounds in the wound pool (even those dealt by shorter range weapons) can be allocated to anyone in range of the firing weapon which reaches the furthest.
-
Maybe.
-
I quite seriously don't see any ambiguity. There is only one wound pool. The word "any" makes clear that just one firing model needs to have range.
-
I quite seriously don't see any ambiguity. There is only one wound pool. The word "any" makes clear that just one firing model needs to have range.
OK, now I know you didn't understand me, because the wound pool (despite being mentioned) has nothing to do with the logic of it.
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.
The only thing the FAQ says, for sure, is that if "not any" (meaning none, but it's bad grammar and they omitted an "of") the weapons could reach a model, then none of the wounds can be allocated to it.
Does that mean, necessarily, that if SOME of the weapons could reach that model, that you can allocate all the wounds to that model, beyond that which could reach them? No it does not. Does it necessarily mean you cannot? No, doesn't say that either.
Did GW intend for the entire wound pool to be applicable to a model even if it was only in range of one weapon? Well, hell, I dunno, probably, if they thought that far, but I'm not sure they did. Until yesterday, I thought they "intended" for the entire wound pool to be applicable if any part of the unit was in range to start with, because frankly that's just easier.
If I was the TO, I'd probably say that if one weapon was in range, you can apply the whole pool, i.e. the same ruling as everyone else, but only because in the absence of a clear answer I'd default back to what it says in the BRB, which would have everything be in ragne if it was to start with anyway.
So we come to the same place. But what is driving me NUTS is that everyone is acting likes it's perfectly clear and obvious, if unexpected. But it's not, they're contradicting a negative (with bad grammar, too)--the only thing it says for sure is that if no weapon can reach a model, you can't allocate wounds to it. It gives no instructions beyond that.
Everything else is just assumptions you're making to make it work, which, y'know, does have to be done.
-
OK, I just figured it out what your hangup is Ragnar, it's that "any" is used in a negative. I will stipulate that if "not any" = NO, that does not mean that then "any"=YES. I think I said that earlier.
-
Hooray 6" mycetic spore!
Now time to build one those silly things.
-
I basically everything this guy has to say about the weapon range FAQ snafu:
http://bloodskullsfire.blogspot.com/2013/01/bad-blogger-no-biscuit-rtt-recap-faq.html
He's semi-local, btw, out of Connecticut. It's a mixed blog post, but scroll down to where he says this and read from there:
Then, they give us 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.
This...
hell, I can't even communicate the rampage of emotion-laden thoughts here...
-
OK, I just figured it out what your hangup is Ragnar, it's that "any" is used in a negative. I will stipulate that if "not any" = NO, that does not mean that then "any"=YES. I think I said that earlier.
So if I understand you correctly, the phrase that's throwing you is “not within range (of) any of the shooting models”.
If a given model is not within range of any of the firing models, that given model cannot have a wound allocated to it. Just like if a given model is not in LOS from any of the firing models*, it can’t have a wound allocated to it. So if you’re firing 10 storm bolters at a unit of 5 grots, and 1 of those grots is outside 24” from ALL of the firers, that grot can’t have a wound allocated to it. Just like if the grots were all in range, but one was out of LOS around the corner of a building.
Or as I’ve taken to boiling it down:
All it's doing is making range work the same way LOS does. If a given model has range & LOS to ANY model in the target unit, that model can fire. If ANY single firing model in the firing unit has range AND line of sight to a given model, that model is eligible to have a wound allocated to it. So just like if there's a model around the corner of a building or something which none of the firers can see, he can't be killed, if there's a model who's out of range of all the firing models, he also can't be killed.
Both are abstractions attempting to make things a bit more model-based than the 5th ed rules.
*(Except for blasts; and note that blasts can get around both the range and LOS limitations)
-
I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that it's "throwing me".
If ANY single firing model in the firing unit has range AND line of sight to a given model, that model is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.
The problem is that I don't think that's necessarily true. It's certainly a reasonable way to decide to do things (but then, I thought the way it used to be was reasonable in that it was simple), and it might be what they intended (but also might not), but it is not actually the corollary of “not within range (of) any of the shooting models”.
We know that if a model was not in range of any weapon, it can't be wounded, that much is clear. But that's the only thing that can be said for sure. It doesn't mean that just because it's in range of one weapon, it can be wounded by all the weapons, even the ones that can't reach it, in fact it sorta implies the opposite. It also doesn't mean that it can't. The fact is it's left completely unsaid, leaving us to rule on our own.
Left to rule on our own. I find the ruling that "if one wepaon can reach it, they all can wound it" perfectly reasonable. Making the parallel to LOS rules is good logic, but frankly, very few GW rules follow precedent in such a logical manner. Truth is I liked the old rule better, because it was simplest.
I will say I found it a little odd when my GKSS (with psybolts, coteaz and various divination powers) would wipe out 20 IG or ork models, at least half of which invariably would be outside 24" (because blobs are big, yo). It is probably good to nerf that a little bit. (though it doesn't help with tzeentch flamers at all, since they have an alternate 18" gun)
-
I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that it's "throwing me".
If ANY single firing model in the firing unit has range AND line of sight to a given model, that model is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.
The problem is that I don't think that's necessarily true. It's certainly a reasonable way to decide to do things (but then, I thought the way it used to be was reasonable in that it was simple), and it might be what they intended (but also might not), but it is not actually the corollary of “not within range (of) any of the shooting models”.
You've definitely lost me. How is this unclear? We had a functional shooting and wound allocation procedure, which we both know how to resolve. Yes? You shoot your stormbolters at the blob, do x hits, which result in y wounds, which are allocated to the unit, closest model to next closest model, and so on, right? Now, take the existing procedure we've been using, and modify it JUST so that the answer to the question of "Hey, I've killed all the guys who are in range of at least one of my firing models; can I keep allocating wounds to the rest of the unit, if they're outside the range of all of my guns?" is "No."
It's one, simple, discrete change. What other possible meanings do you think it could have?
-
OK, I just figured it out what your hangup is Ragnar, it's that "any" is used in a negative. I will stipulate that if "not any" = NO, that does not mean that then "any"=YES. I think I said that earlier.
So if I understand you correctly, the phrase that's throwing you is “not within range (of) any of the shooting models”.
If a given model is not within range of any of the firing models, that given model cannot have a wound allocated to it. Just like if a given model is not in LOS from any of the firing models*, it can’t have a wound allocated to it. So if you’re firing 10 storm bolters at a unit of 5 grots, and 1 of those grots is outside 24” from ALL of the firers, that grot can’t have a wound allocated to it. Just like if the grots were all in range, but one was out of LOS around the corner of a building.
Or as I’ve taken to boiling it down:
All it's doing is making range work the same way LOS does. If a given model has range & LOS to ANY model in the target unit, that model can fire. If ANY single firing model in the firing unit has range AND line of sight to a given model, that model is eligible to have a wound allocated to it. So just like if there's a model around the corner of a building or something which none of the firers can see, he can't be killed, if there's a model who's out of range of all the firing models, he also can't be killed.
Both are abstractions attempting to make things a bit more model-based than the 5th ed rules.
*(Except for blasts; and note that blasts can get around both the range and LOS limitations)
So then does including a model in your unit with a longer range weapon magically extend the range of wounds that can be allocated or not? If so then how does magic work? Does just having the longer range weapon make the magic work? Do you have to fire the weapon for the magic to activate? Do you have to hit with the longer range weapon for the magic to work? Do you have to hit and do a wound with the longer range weapon for the magic to work? Can you do a deny the witch roll to prevent the magic from occurring?
Fucking magic how does it work?
-
OK, I just figured it out what your hangup is Ragnar, it's that "any" is used in a negative. I will stipulate that if "not any" = NO, that does not mean that then "any"=YES. I think I said that earlier.
So if I understand you correctly, the phrase that's throwing you is “not within range (of) any of the shooting models”.
If a given model is not within range of any of the firing models, that given model cannot have a wound allocated to it. Just like if a given model is not in LOS from any of the firing models*, it can’t have a wound allocated to it. So if you’re firing 10 storm bolters at a unit of 5 grots, and 1 of those grots is outside 24” from ALL of the firers, that grot can’t have a wound allocated to it. Just like if the grots were all in range, but one was out of LOS around the corner of a building.
Or as I’ve taken to boiling it down:
All it's doing is making range work the same way LOS does. If a given model has range & LOS to ANY model in the target unit, that model can fire. If ANY single firing model in the firing unit has range AND line of sight to a given model, that model is eligible to have a wound allocated to it. So just like if there's a model around the corner of a building or something which none of the firers can see, he can't be killed, if there's a model who's out of range of all the firing models, he also can't be killed.
Both are abstractions attempting to make things a bit more model-based than the 5th ed rules.
*(Except for blasts; and note that blasts can get around both the range and LOS limitations)
So then does including a model in your unit with a longer range weapon magically extend the range of wounds that can be allocated or not? If so then how does magic work? Does just having the longer range weapon make the magic work? Do you have to fire the weapon for the magic to activate? Do you have to hit with the longer range weapon for the magic to work? Do you have to hit and do a wound with the longer range weapon for the magic to work? Can you do a deny the witch roll to prevent the magic from occurring?
Fucking magic how does it work?
Umm, the magic works how the rule says it works? If a model in the targetted unit is "not within range (of) any of the shooting models", it can't have a wound allocated to it. This is the ONLY change from the way it worked before.
I really don't understand the internet shitstorm over this, it seems like people are itching to freak out about something...
People are acting like this FAQ is giving all these magical powers to long-range weapons.... this is ass backwards. PRIOR to this FAQ, every gun had infinite range when it came to the wound pool (as long as it was legal to fire in the first place)... AFTER the FAQ, there is a limitation which says that if a target model was out of range of all the firing models, it can't be wounded... there is NO scenario in which this FAQ gives additional range to firing models. So there must actually be less "fucking magic" now, if you think about it.
-
Right. No magic; just a couple of abstractions to simplify things.
All it's doing is making range work the same way LOS does. If a given model has range & LOS to ANY model in the target unit, that model can fire. If ANY single firing model in the firing unit has range AND line of sight to a given model, that model is eligible to have a wound allocated to it. So just like if there's a model around the corner of a building or something which none of the firers can see, he can't be killed, if there's a model who's out of range of all the firing models, he also can't be killed.
If only one of your space marines can see the grot hiding around the corner of the building, and the rest of the marines can see the rest of the grots, you don't roll separately to see if the one SM kills that one grot. You just roll them all together, and you know that grot is a legit target for wound allocation because at least one of the firing models can see him.
If only one of your space marines has range to the grot hiding way in the back of the unit, and the rest of the marines have range to the rest of the grots, you don't roll separately to see if the one SM kills that one grot. You just roll them all together, and you know that grot is a legit target for wound allocation because at least one of the firing models has range to him.
If you want to roll attacks from a squad of guys model by model, Warmachine does that. That's a great game too, but I find it way too fiddly and slow for 40k-scale games/numbers of figs.
-
Mannahin, that makes sense to me.
-
What Ragnar is saying does make sense. Unfortunately, pretending that's what the rule says is a polite fiction. The rule doesn't address it.
-
Some people are just never happy.
Nice job with the "for dummies" Ragnar...
-
For Battleground and its events, the only truly important opinion would be Sam's.
Good luck to him.
-
For Battleground and its events, the only truly important opinion would be Sam's.
Good luck to him.
Oh no sir, there are many truly important opinions, figured you'd have that straight by now ;)
-
If I were to say, "I only have 10 miles' worth of gas in my car, and I'm not within 10 miles of any gas station", would you think,
A. "Oh, that's OK... while there are some gas stations more than 10 miles away, there are probably some others that are closer than 10 miles"
or would you think
B. "That guy is screwed".
If you would answer B, then this FAQ rule must be perfectly virtuous and make total sense.
-
I think that's a good way to put it, and that I agree with you, but wouldn't that meant the FAQ rule doesn't make sense?
I guess I'm confused which side you come down on.
-
The people having most problems with this ruling are being far too literal. We know that unit to unit shooting is abstracted so why are we having a problem with this?
-
What Ragnar is saying does make sense. Unfortunately, pretending that's what the rule says is a polite fiction. The rule doesn't address it.
How about we pretend that I wrote a whole post asking you a couple of question that you haven't answered yet? Is that enough of a "fiction" for you?
You've definitely lost me. How is this unclear? We had a functional shooting and wound allocation procedure, which we both know how to resolve. Yes? You shoot your stormbolters at the blob, do x hits, which result in y wounds, which are allocated to the unit, closest model to next closest model, and so on, right? Now, take the existing procedure we've been using, and modify it JUST so that the answer to the question of "Hey, I've killed all the guys who are in range of at least one of my firing models; can I keep allocating wounds to the rest of the unit, if they're outside the range of all of my guns?" is "No."
It's one, simple, discrete change. What other possible meanings do you think it could have?
-
I actually don't know specifically what you are referring to. I was also not trying to be combative by calling it a "polite fiction". My entire point is that the FAQ question does not address what happens when some of the weapons are in range. Everything you have said is a reasonable ad hoc ruling, the problem is an ad hoc ruling is required....which of course is the fault of GW, not you.
-
I actually don't know specifically what you are referring to.
I just quoted the whole post again, to spare you the trouble of going back to the previous page where you evidently missed it the first time. Try looking again. It's right above your post.
I was also not trying to be combative by calling it a "polite fiction". My entire point is that the FAQ question does not address what happens when some of the weapons are in range.
Yes, it most certainly does. I am asking you for the third time to explain what else you think it could mean. Because when I read it it says that if a given model is not in range of "any" of the firers, then it cannot have a wound allocated to it. Just like the rulebook tells us that if a given model is not in LOS of any of the firers, it cannot have a wound allocated to it.
-
I actually don't know specifically what you are referring to. I was also not trying to be combative by calling it a "polite fiction". My entire point is that the FAQ question does not address what happens when some of the weapons are in range. Everything you have said is a reasonable ad hoc ruling, the problem is an ad hoc ruling is required....which of course is the fault of GW, not you.
Does it need to? In order to fire, a weapon has to be in range of at least model in the target unit. That has not changed.
So if I've 8 men in a squad with las guns and 2 manning an auto cannon. I shoot at a squad of marines, 1 of the las guns is 25 inches away from the nearest model in the target unit. That means I'm only rolling to hit with the auto cannon and 7 las guns.
From this point on range ceases to matter... The unit is hit and models are removed starting closest....
Well, ok, but I think the situation that everyone is wondering about is when all the lasguns are within range of 1 model, and the rest of the target unit is only in range of the autocannon.
You've definitely lost me. How is this unclear? We had a functional shooting and wound allocation procedure, which we both know how to resolve. Yes? You shoot your stormbolters at the blob, do x hits, which result in y wounds, which are allocated to the unit, closest model to next closest model, and so on, right? Now, take the existing procedure we've been using, and modify it JUST so that the answer to the question of "Hey, I've killed all the guys who are in range of at least one of my firing models; can I keep allocating wounds to the rest of the unit, if they're outside the range of all of my guns?" is "No."
It's one, simple, discrete change. What other possible meanings do you think it could have?
[/quote]
I dunno, man, I've run out of ways to say it. That's why I didn't understand what you were asking that I hadn't answered.
One more try.
1) We know what happens when all the weapons are in range of a particular model. (we can allocate wounds to it)
2) We know what happens when No weapons have range to a model (we cannot allocate wounds to it, as per FAQ)
3) We do not know what happens when only some of the weapons can reach a model. (we are given no instructions, either in the BRB or FAQ)
Just like the rulebook tells us that if a given model is not in LOS of any of the firers, it cannot have a wound allocated to it.
That's....actually not relavant, kinda my point.
THe LOS rules are a fine template if you want to make a house rule for the range rules, but we are given no direction to do so. The range rules and LOS rules idffer in lots, of little, annoying ways, and will continue to do so, you can't use one as a precedent for the other. I would enjoy it immensely if GW started using precedent and a logical format for all their rules, but they show no signs of doing so.
-
I actually don't know specifically what you are referring to. I was also not trying to be combative by calling it a "polite fiction". My entire point is that the FAQ question does not address what happens when some of the weapons are in range. Everything you have said is a reasonable ad hoc ruling, the problem is an ad hoc ruling is required....which of course is the fault of GW, not you.
Does it need to? In order to fire, a weapon has to be in range of at least model in the target unit. That has not changed.
So if I've 8 men in a squad with las guns and 2 manning an auto cannon. I shoot at a squad of marines, 1 of the las guns is 25 inches away from the nearest model in the target unit. That means I'm only rolling to hit with the auto cannon and 7 las guns.
From this point on range ceases to matter... The unit is hit and models are removed starting closest....
Well, ok, but I think the situation that everyone is wondering about is when all the lasguns are within range of 1 model, and the rest of the target unit is only in range of the autocannon.
The exact same thing as happened before. All the lasguns can fire and wound whoever, because every model is in range of at least one firing model.
Nothing has changed about the procedure we were using up to this point, except to say that if that AC is not present or does not fire for some reason, then those other models are NOT in range of "any" of the firing models, and thus per the new FAQ, they can no longer have wounds allocated to them.
You've definitely lost me. How is this unclear? We had a functional shooting and wound allocation procedure, which we both know how to resolve. Yes? You shoot your stormbolters at the blob, do x hits, which result in y wounds, which are allocated to the unit, closest model to next closest model, and so on, right? Now, take the existing procedure we've been using, and modify it JUST so that the answer to the question of "Hey, I've killed all the guys who are in range of at least one of my firing models; can I keep allocating wounds to the rest of the unit, if they're outside the range of all of my guns?" is "No."
-
Ok? If you want to just say "everything could before", and the only guidance we've been given is, "if no weapons can hit a model, you can't allocated wounds to it" and then "in all other situations, revert to previous"
Well, fine, then it results in that. I think I've said a few times, that's the way I'd rule it.
But what's driving me nuts is people saying "it's obvious" or it's "right there in the FAQ." Well, it's not, we have a great big hole in the rules, and you're effectively attempting to patch it.
-
Are we really still debating this?
-
There's no hole. It works exactly the same way it used to, EXCEPT that there's now a cap on how far away you can wound anyone, limited to the farthest model any of the firing models can reach.
It really is that simple.
-
It's not simple, they didn't write a FAQ that in anyway has a simple interpretation.
Whatever. Ragnar, I am perfectly happy with the stop-gap way you (and most people) want to run it. That leaves us really arguing about how "obvious" it is. That's probably a silly thing to argue about, so I'm going to bow out.
-
I apologize if I got snappy or short. I just sincerely can't see any hole. All I see is one discrete modification of an extant procedure which was perfectly functional and didn't have any holes either.
-
It previously was simple, complete, functional, understandable and clear rule, yes. (if a little forgiving for the dakka shooter).
-
Sure. Completely agreed. I just don't understand how this one simple change creates a hole or makes wound allocation somehow unclear.
-
I'll talk to you about it person, maybe that'll be easier. Templecon?
-
Sure. Cheers.
-
Hey guys.
-
Sup Goss.