New FAQs!

[Kastor Krieg]

Still idiotic. >,<

[jb7090]

And just to add a little more confusion, if you replace the storm bolter with an autocannon, the pistols wind up in a different wound pool and will stop pulling models at 12" again.

 

No, there is only 1 pool. There are different strength and AP groups within it, but it is only 1 pool. pg. 14.

 

Also, remember that in your example since the autocannon was fired, the wounds from the pistols can continue to be allocated within that unit provided the initial model was within the pistol's range.

[Excessus]

Hmm, a slaanesh sorcerer that makes all those lovely new blastmasters S9...almost like a blast lascannon... :P

[jb7090]

Still idiotic. >,<

 

Absolutely. They took a somewhat clean and simple rule and make it overly complicated and annoying.

[Jacinda]

The 2nd scenario is idiotic. I put a 48" range weapon into a Salvo 2/4 squad of DA tacticals (DAKKA flag!) and suddenly I have 2 shots out of each bolters, at range 48" instead of 12"?! oO

This is for wound allocation only; anything not in range could not shoot in the first pace.

 

Once you determin who all is in rnage, then those models can fire. Roll to hit with those models in range. As long as they all have the same S and AP, you can lump them all together to save time. Different AP wounds are allocated one pool at a time so it is likely this won't happen much. But with the pistols/stormbolter example above, they have the same S and AP so all the wounds are in one allocation pool. You start pulling off models from the closest as long as there was at least one weapon that could reach model taking the wound.

 

Again, this is for wound allocation only. You are not going to be able to fire a bolter at something 48" away just because you have a missile launcher in the same squad.

[Jacinda]

The 2nd scenario is idiotic. I put a 48" range weapon into a Salvo 2/4 squad of DA tacticals (DAKKA flag!) and suddenly I have 2 shots out of each bolters, at range 48" instead of 12"?! oO

Youre reading it wrong. 10 man Dark eldar unit is 11" away from your Dakka unit. You have 4 guys with bolters and 1 guy with a ML and the banner(just for argument's sake). Your squad moved so they are salvo 2 and 12" and your ML is snap firing. Since the closest model is 10" away your salvo weapons are eligible to roll to hit, along with your ML. You manage to hit and wound 5. After removing the first model the next guy is now 13" away but you are still eligible to allocate wounds because the 48" range of the ML. If you didnt have the ML you would stop because the rest of the squad would be out of range.

But the bolters are AP4. The missile launcher is AP3.

See Mixed Wounds at the bottom of page 15. You will not be able to piggy back your bolters off of your missile launcher.

[Iron_Within]

This has made something completely simple utterly confusing for no reason whatsoever. I will continue operating in the normal gaming group convention; it was in range when that unit rolled to hit and wounded? yes, then it kills something.

[Azekai]

Still idiotic. >,<

 

Absolutely. They took a somewhat clean and simple rule and make it overly complicated and annoying.

Par for the course in 6th. Complicated and annoying sums up the entire system. If 40k were expressed in programming code it would be inelegant and obtuse.

[Kastor Krieg]

Yeah, but if you have 6 out of 10 one-wound models in range of, say, stormbolters* and you do 12 unsaved Wounds, without a ML* you kill 6 of them. If you have an ML* though, even if it missed by a mile, you kill the whole squad.

 

THIS IS TOTALLY ABSURD

 

* insert here any weapons that have the same AP but different ranges, of course.

[Sception]

Soo... dramatic and unexpected buffs to noise marines, putting them well within the range of viable, instead of just 'eh, kind of ok, maybe?', though the salvo rule is still super annoying. You know, instead of confusing the wound allocation rules further and pointlessly, it would be nice if they just pulled the range reduction off of salvo...

 

Still dramatic improvement for noise marines, and dramatic improvement for helldrakes, which were already the best unit in the book. And they fixed abby, and improved Khârn, and ... they changed the 'daemon of' rule on princes from "must" too ... "must"? Did they errata that to be exactly the same as it was? Whatever.

 

Nice to see, and the blastermaster change was completely unexpected. If GW is willing to go back and just change things via errata, we may see considerably more use out of this book as time goes on. Heck, with the daemon update, we saw GW willing to revise a units rules when releasing new models. If rumors of upcoming new plastic sons in the next year or two pan out, then thousand sons may get the ground-up revision they desperately need. And I'm still hoping for a new GW dreadclaw what with the FW model discontinued.

 

 

The codex was kind of an ugly duckling on release, but if it gets two to three more unexpected improvements along the lines of what we saw here, it may yet blossom into a beautiful swan.

[Jacinda]

OK, now we have people complaing that it works both ways.

If it was in range when I fired then something dies. It does not work this way so it is dumb. It does work this way so it is dumb.

[Sception]

More nutty fallout from closest wounds.

[Kastor Krieg]

A range of 24" is a range of 24". I do not get to hit and kill (allocate Wounds to) the guy on the 30th inch just because there's a "range-extender" weapon guy along for the ride and there were "leftover" bullets to spare mid-air. Realistically, I mean.

 

In 40k? Sure. ARGH.

[Jacinda]

... they changed the 'daemon of' rule on princes from "must" too ... "must"? Did they errata that to be exactly the same as it was?

The change was the added limitation of one.

Apparently someone somewhere was taking multiple upgrades ....

[Sception]

Ok. Still hoping someone, someday, will realize that's a stupid restriction and trade the 'must' for 'may'.

[jb7090]

The 2nd scenario is idiotic. I put a 48" range weapon into a Salvo 2/4 squad of DA tacticals (DAKKA flag!) and suddenly I have 2 shots out of each bolters, at range 48" instead of 12"?! oO

Youre reading it wrong. 10 man Dark eldar unit is 11" away from your Dakka unit. You have 4 guys with bolters and 1 guy with a ML and the banner(just for argument's sake). Your squad moved so they are salvo 2 and 12" and your ML is snap firing. Since the closest model is 10" away your salvo weapons are eligible to roll to hit, along with your ML. You manage to hit and wound 5. After removing the first model the next guy is now 13" away but you are still eligible to allocate wounds because the 48" range of the ML. If you didnt have the ML you would stop because the rest of the squad would be out of range.

But the bolters are AP4. The missile launcher is AP3.

See Mixed Wounds at the bottom of page 15. You will not be able to piggy back your bolters off of your missile launcher.

 

If the first initial model is within 12" then yes they would because the ML has 48" range.

 

 

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)?

A: No

 

The keyword is any, the unit would be within range of the ML so therefore wounds could be allocated to it.

 

Edit: Remember when rolling the mixed wounds from the wound pool, those weapons have already hit. As long as you have one weapon with longer range, and the initial models were within range of the shorter ranged weapons then wounds continue to be allocated.

[Jacinda]

A range of 24" is a range of 24". I do not get to hit and kill (allocate Wounds to) the guy on the 30th inch just because there's a "range-extender" weapon guy along for the ride and there were "leftover" bullets to spare mid-air. Realistically, I mean.

 

In 40k? Sure. ARGH.

 

That's they way ot worked in 5th. If one model of the target unit was in range and line of sight, the entire unit was in range and line of sight. Don't you remember the days when whole squads could be wiped out because the seargent had his thumb in the air?

[Kastor Krieg]

Haven't played in 5th, I'm a relative newcomer (relative, because I'm 30 and I've played... I want to say, 3rd, of which I can't recall any? Back at the end of elementary school?), so I don't recall that. It's not very reassuring that it was dumb in 5th and they did not fix it in 6th :/

[Jacinda]

The 2nd scenario is idiotic. I put a 48" range weapon into a Salvo 2/4 squad of DA tacticals (DAKKA flag!) and suddenly I have 2 shots out of each bolters, at range 48" instead of 12"?! oO

Youre reading it wrong. 10 man Dark eldar unit is 11" away from your Dakka unit. You have 4 guys with bolters and 1 guy with a ML and the banner(just for argument's sake). Your squad moved so they are salvo 2 and 12" and your ML is snap firing. Since the closest model is 10" away your salvo weapons are eligible to roll to hit, along with your ML. You manage to hit and wound 5. After removing the first model the next guy is now 13" away but you are still eligible to allocate wounds because the 48" range of the ML. If you didnt have the ML you would stop because the rest of the squad would be out of range.

But the bolters are AP4. The missile launcher is AP3.

See Mixed Wounds at the bottom of page 15. You will not be able to piggy back your bolters off of your missile launcher.

 

If the first initial model is within 12" then yes they would because the ML has 48" range.

 

 

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)?

A: No

 

The keyword is any, the unit would be within range of the ML so therefore wounds could be allocated to it.

 

Dude. The answer is right there. NO.

If it is out of range, it is out of range. This in no way implies that you can fire at targets that are out of range or allocate wounds that must be allocated seperatly at the same time as other wounds. Nothing here gives permission to do anything counter to the base rules. In fact the only thing it does is reitterate that permission is denied.

[jb7090]

The 2nd scenario is idiotic. I put a 48" range weapon into a Salvo 2/4 squad of DA tacticals (DAKKA flag!) and suddenly I have 2 shots out of each bolters, at range 48" instead of 12"?! oO

Youre reading it wrong. 10 man Dark eldar unit is 11" away from your Dakka unit. You have 4 guys with bolters and 1 guy with a ML and the banner(just for argument's sake). Your squad moved so they are salvo 2 and 12" and your ML is snap firing. Since the closest model is 10" away your salvo weapons are eligible to roll to hit, along with your ML. You manage to hit and wound 5. After removing the first model the next guy is now 13" away but you are still eligible to allocate wounds because the 48" range of the ML. If you didnt have the ML you would stop because the rest of the squad would be out of range.

But the bolters are AP4. The missile launcher is AP3.

See Mixed Wounds at the bottom of page 15. You will not be able to piggy back your bolters off of your missile launcher.

 

If the first initial model is within 12" then yes they would because the ML has 48" range.

 

 

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)?

A: No

 

The keyword is any, the unit would be within range of the ML so therefore wounds could be allocated to it.

 

Dude. The answer is right there. NO.

If it is out of range, it is out of range. This in no way implies that you can fire at targets that are out of range or allocate wounds that must be allocated seperatly at the same time as other wounds. Nothing here gives permission to do anything counter to the base rules. In fact the only thing it does is reitterate that permission is denied.

 

Im just going to copy and paste what I wrote earlier, maybe it will clear it up for you. Lets be clear, Im not saying bolt pistols could shoot at a model 13" away or bolt guns fire at a model 25" away. What I am saying, what what it looks like to me and a lot of other people is that if the initial model is within range, then you keep allocating wounds until models are out of range of ALL the weapons in that unit.

 

"5 bolters + 1 lascanon shoots. Same situation with target unit.

Pre FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys.

Post FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys... Because the lascannon that was fired means all of the models in the enemy unit are in range for wound allocation."

[Jacinda]

Why not just copy and paste the answer from the FAQ again?

A: No.

 

It does not get any easier than that. The statement is false. You can not derive anything else from that. You absolutely can not assume the validity of the compliment.

[minionboy]

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)?

A: No

 

The keyword is any, the unit would be within range of the ML so therefore wounds could be allocated to it.

 

Edit: Remember when rolling the mixed wounds from the wound pool, those weapons have already hit. As long as you have one weapon with longer range, and the initial models were within range of the shorter ranged weapons then wounds continue to be allocated.

 

I think this is it. The rules clearly say that wounds from the wound pool cannot be allocated to models that were not within range of ANY of the shooting models.

 

Regardless of how dumb it is, the ruling is very clear about "any of the shooting models". If a missile launcher fired with the unit, it is still under the category of "any of the shooting models" regardless of the fact that it is a different weapon.

 

In all honesty, this probably doesn't change the way most people were playing anyhow, so I don't see the reason to freak out. It's really more of a nerf to Flamers and Burna wagons than anything... thank god.

[Jacinda]

Q: If I roll purple and green dice, do I automatically hit with any dice?

A: No.

 

How does this imply that I can automatically miss with purple?

 

 

It does not matter what the question asked since the question is wrong.

[jb7090]

Youre not even making any sense Jacinda. Maybe calm down and go take a walk lol.

[Brother Ambroz]

I don't really think anyone's going to play that way. If they did I'd probably not play them. Anyway I think this discussion about salvo should go to the Official rules forum if anything.