New FAQs are out

[Sir_Prometheus]

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. 

[Sir_Prometheus]

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.

[JWebs]

Hooray 6" mycetic spore!

Now time to build one those silly things.

[Sir_Prometheus]

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...

[Mannahnin]

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)

[Sir_Prometheus]

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)

[Mannahnin]

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?

[Pat.H]

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?

[andalucien]

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.

[Mannahnin]

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.

[Benjamin]

Mannahin, that makes sense to me.

[Sir_Prometheus]

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.

[Achillius]

Some people are just never happy.

Nice job with the "for dummies" Ragnar...

[Benjamin]

For Battleground and its events, the only truly important opinion would be Sam's.

Good luck to him.

[Achillius]

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