What is the Actual Range Rule?

[Nabterayl]

Can somebody check me on my understanding of the rules for range? My understanding of the rule is this:


A model cannot have a wound allocated to it if it is out of range of each model in the firing unit, but may have any wound allocated to it if it is in range of at least one model in the firing unit.

with the corollary


A model may not fire a weapon if no visible models in the target unit are within range of that weapon.

The relevant text appears to me to be this, from page 16:


As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

The only way I can make heads or tails of this is that as long as a weapon was allowed to shoot at all (i.e., at least one visible model from the target unit was in range at the start of the shooting attack), wounds from that weapon may be allocated to any visible model in the target unit, regardless of how far away it is. Is this other people's understanding as well?

[Kyban]

The new FAQ just means that you cannot allocate wounds to models that are out of range of all of the firing unit's weapons.

[Nabterayl]

I'm aware of that. I'm really not sure why they felt the need to state it. But I'm not asking about whether a model that is out of range of all the firing models is an eligible casualty. Consider the following scenario:


A Dominion squad is armed with four flamers and six boltguns. It is firing at a unit of 16 cultists. Each cultist is visible to each sister. The same four unlucky cultists are within range of each flamer; the remaining 12 cultists are each within range of at least one firing boltgun. Owing to a bizarre bit of luck, the four flamers each hit four times and wound four times, while each boltgun shot either misses or fails to wound. How many cultists can die?

My understanding is that, as all 16 cultists were within range of the firing unit, and as all of the sisters' weapons were allowed to fire, all 16 cultists are eligible to die despite the fact that only four were within range of the flamers. On the other hand, if only four flamers had fired (whether because the boltguns couldn't see any cultists to shoot, all the boltgun-carrying sisters were dead, or whatever), only four cultists would be eligible to die.

[walrusman999]

I'm aware of that. I'm really not sure why they felt the need to state it. But I'm not asking about whether a model that is out of range of all the firing models is an eligible casualty. Consider the following scenario:

A Dominion squad is armed with four flamers and six boltguns. It is firing at a unit of 16 cultists. Each cultist is visible to each sister. The same four unlucky cultists are within range of each flamer; the remaining 12 cultists are each within range of at least one firing boltgun. Owing to a bizarre bit of luck, the four flamers each hit four times and wound four times, while each boltgun shot either misses or fails to wound. How many cultists can die?

My understanding is that, as all 16 cultists were within range of the firing unit, and as all of the sisters' weapons were allowed to fire, all 16 cultists are eligible to die despite the fact that only four were within range of the flamers. On the other hand, if only four flamers had fired (whether because the boltguns couldn't see any cultists to shoot, all the boltgun-carrying sisters were dead, or whatever), only four cultists would be eligible to die.

As far as I understand this, you are correct in your assessment. Lets say you had the same squad with 1 heavy bolter and 9 bolters, all of the bolters could hit one guy who was closest to the squad, but the heavy bolter could hit all of them. They are all visible so there arn't any exclusions. All of the bolters hit and wound killing 9 cultists and the wounds could be allocated to the entire squad because the heavy bolters range covers the entire squad of cultists.

But on the otherhand, like you had mentioned, if the heavy bolter sister died, and the 9 bolters left could only hit one guy, then that one guy is the only one who could take the wounds.

[Firehead158]

So, with all of this being stated, it makes sense to always allocate the shortest range weapons first, then go for longer range to allow for maximum casualties. This would be in order to avoid the longer range weapon robbing the shorter ranged weapons of their kills. Is this a correct statement? Just trying to make sure I understand.

[rtmaitreya]

So, with all of this being stated, it makes sense to always allocate the shortest range weapons first, then go for longer range to allow for maximum casualties. This would be in order to avoid the longer range weapon robbing the shorter ranged weapons of their kills. Is this a correct statement? Just trying to make sure I understand.

No, this is an incorrect reading. The firing and wound allocation is unit by unit, not model by model. The FAQ states the same thing as the rules with less ambiguity. The example of the flamers and bolter killing all 16 cultists is correct according to the rules and the FAQ. If all enemy models are in range of ONE weapon, then they ALL can die. This alone makes a missile launcher a decent idea in a unit of tactical marines.

[walrusman999]

No, this is an incorrect reading. The firing and wound allocation is unit by unit, not model by model. The FAQ states the same thing as the rules with less ambiguity. The example of the flamers and bolter killing all 16 cultists is correct according to the rules and the FAQ. If all enemy models are in range of ONE weapon, then they ALL can die. This alone makes a missile launcher a decent idea in a unit of tactical marines.

Indeed, I have never really considered how building a squad could affect its shooting capabilities but with the new rules you have to take that into account.

[Caitsidhe]

One can only hope they Faq their Faq and clarify that the long range weapons do not allow the shorter range weapons to inflict wounds.

[Nabterayl]

One can only hope they Faq their Faq and clarify that the long range weapons do not allow the shorter range weapons to inflict wounds.
Perhaps. The BRB pretty clearly contemplates this issue with its "even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range" language. I don't think this is an unintended artifact.

If they do as you suggest, we would have to keep track of individual weapons all the way from rolling to hit. It may be that they wrote the rules as they did to avoid that problem. And I imagine that, most of the time, it rarely comes up - since a weapon only gets its range "extended" if it was in range of the target unit to begin with.

[Caitsidhe]

Perhaps. The BRB pretty clearly contemplates this issue with its "even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range" language. I don't think this is an unintended artifact.

It could go either way (I agree). Games Workshop tends to run with its head where the sun doesn't shine on these matters. If they do decide to do it as you suggest wherein a single long range weapon magically makes all the bolters able to hit models out of range... then there was NO REASON to do the silly Faq in the first place. Why replace a silly situation with an even sillier one?

If they go as I think they should, weapons will be broken into pools (as different weapons tend to be done already) and applied in the appropriate order. Most people will resolve their Lascannon last since chances are they will have eaten up the guys in range with the Bolters first. If they do NOT do this change they will continue to have idiotic stuff like...

Daemon Flamers Deepstrike in and blast the extreme end of an IG line. Even though their Flame templates can only hit five guys (the SAME five guys) one of the models uses the long range attack and for some reason thirty IG vanish in flame when only five where anywhere near it. One must presume the ran into the fire one after another longing to join their fallen comrades. Do you see where I'm going with that? The change the Faq intends is a GOOD one. The just didn't do it completely or give it enough thought.

[Anggul]

I'd never even considered this...

wow, that's stupid.