Can you kill enemies out of shooting range?

[TheBearminator]

A very basic question that came up today, during my second 6th edition game. A flyrant made 12 (I think) shots at a unit of space wolves. Only one in range, and two more in line of sight but out of range, then even more out of sight and out of range. How many can get killed really?

I thought I had found it on page 16, but it's not that clearly written. It says that's what's matters is if a model was in range in the start of the shooting phase. If they go out of range because of casualties they can still be killed. I guess this applies to situations where more than one unit attempts to shoot at a unit. Even if the second shooter suddenly finds himself out of range he can still shoot.

But in this case it's even simpler. Only one shooting unit but I can't find the rules for it?

Guess this matter has already been discussed. In that case I'd be happy for a link. Made a search for "out of range" but got no hit with Tapatalk.

[Mr_Rose]

A very basic question that came up today, during my second 6th edition game. A flyrant made 12 (I think) shots at a unit of space wolves. Only one in range, and two more in line of sight but out of range, then even more out of sight and out of range. How many can get killed really?

Three.

I thought I had found it on page 16, but it's not that clearly written. It says that's what's matters is if a model was in range in the start of the shooting phase. If they go out of range because of casualties they can still be killed. I guess this applies to situations where more than one unit attempts to shoot at a unit. Even if the second shooter suddenly finds himself out of range he can still shoot.

Two sets of models are involved in any shooting action; the firing unit and the target unit. Models in the firing unit that have no weapons in range of cannot shoot at all. Models in the target unit can all be hit as long as at least one of them was in range of the firing unit. Models in the target unit cannot be wounded (i.e. have wounds allocated to them) if they are out of sight of all models in the firing unit.

But in this case it's even simpler. Only one shooting unit but I can't find the rules for it?

Your tyrant is the only model in his unit so you only have to check range to him. He can hit any models in the target unit he can see.

I think you are getting units and models confused though; you mention a second shooting unit when the rules only mention models...

[TheBearminator]

Three.

Two sets of models are involved in any shooting action; the firing unit and the target unit. Models in the firing unit that have no weapons in range of cannot shoot at all. Models in the target unit can all be hit as long as at least one of them was in range of the firing unit. Models in the target unit cannot be wounded (i.e. have wounds allocated to them) if they are out of sight of all models in the firing unit.


Your tyrant is the only model in his unit so you only have to check range to him. He can hit any models in the target unit he can see.

I think you are getting units and models confused though; you mention a second shooting unit when the rules only mention models...

Ah, thanks a lot! :-)

[alextroy]

Mr. Rose is incorrect. If only one Space Wolf was in range of the Flyrant when he fired, that Space Wolf is the only model that can be taken as a causality. He has incorrectly quoted the Out of Range rule (page 16), which stipulates that a model is counted as being in range of firing from a unit as long as it was in range of at least one of the enemy models when the unit fired.

For example: Two space marines, one with a Plasma Pistol and a second with a Bolter, fired at a unit with one model within 12" of both models, but more models within the 24" range of the Bolter. They inflict two wounds, one the the PP and the second with The Bolter. The Plasma Pistol is still counted as being in range even if the Bolter wound is resolved first and kills the one model within 12" of the Plasma Pistol.

[TheBearminator]

So the simple answer is that you can kill models in your units range and line of sight, but every wound outside that range and line of sight is neglected?

I must say I find the 6th edition rules very unclear on this. Or perhaps I've just not found it yet?

[Mr_Rose]

Mr. Rose is incorrect. If only one Space Wolf was in range of the Flyrant when he fired, that Space Wolf is the only model that can be taken as a causality. He has incorrectly quoted the Out of Range rule (page 16), which stipulates that a model is counted as being in range of firing from a unit as long as it was in range of at least one of the enemy models when the unit fired.

For example: Two space marines, one with a Plasma Pistol and a second with a Bolter, fired at a unit with one model within 12" of both models, but more models within the 24" range of the Bolter. They inflict two wounds, one the the PP and the second with The Bolter. The Plasma Pistol is still counted as being in range even if the Bolter wound is resolved first and kills the one model within 12" of the Plasma Pistol.

You need to rewrite your example, as it agrees with me, or you need to redefine your position.
The Out of Range rule is referring to the shooting model continuing to be in range even if casualty removal puts it out of range of the remainder of the enemy unit; it makes no distinction between casualties removed by other models' shooting in the same unit or by the same model's other shots.

Yes the result is sometimes slightly unintuitive, but then that's never stopped a wargame rule set before (see 5 goblins steadfast against a bloodthirster for ex.)…

[The_Klobb_Maniac]

Unless I've misinterpreted rose, I believe he's correct. Simply answer is as long as you can see them and shoot ONE member of their squad, you can kill them. Think 5th ed but you have to see them; quite simple.

[ehlijen]

The section alextroy is referring to is unfortunately worded. It seems to indicate that a model can be safe from shooting if it is out of range from the shooter even though the unit as a whole was in range, but that makes no sense because casualty removal wouldn't ever change that.

How, I believe, it should have been written is this [my changes in brackets]:

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

[TheBearminator]

The section alextroy is referring to is unfortunately worded. It seems to indicate that a model can be safe from shooting if it is out of range from the shooter even though the unit as a whole was in range, but that makes no sense because casualty removal wouldn't ever change that.

That's what I thought as well.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

There is a rule that prevents a firing model from firing if it doesn't have range to at least one enemy model before any of its unit's shots are fired.

There is no (other) rule that prevents a model in the target unit from being removed for being out of range.

This is true even if you misinterpret the OUT OF RANGE rule, as the OUT OF RANGE rule is entirely a rule of "allowance" - strictly speaking it does not affect the rules at all (merely allowing things that are already allowed and nowhere prevented), so it is quite ironically simply there for clarification.

Ehlijen is right that the first "model" in OUT OF RANGE is referring to a firing model.

Contrast the OUT OF RANGE rule with the OUT OF SIGHT rule; OUT OF RANGE says "ignore range in this situation", OUT OF SIGHT says "ignore wounds in this situation". There's no way to read OUT OF RANGE as "ignore wounds in this situation", regardless of what you argue "this situation" to be.

[Mr_Rose]

The section alextroy is referring to is unfortunately worded. It seems to indicate that a model can be safe from shooting if it is out of range from the shooter even though the unit as a whole was in range, but that makes no sense because casualty removal wouldn't ever change that.

How, I believe, it should have been written is this [my changes in brackets]:

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

Still not sure how any other interpretation could work since the entire shooting section is written from the PoV of a shooting unit and uses "target" and "enemy" as synonyms. Yes it could be clearer and your modified version is, but the original isn't that hard to parse is it?

[TheBearminator]

There is a rule that prevents a firing model from firing if it doesn't have range to at least one enemy model before any of its unit's shots are fired.

There is no (other) rule that prevents a model in the target unit from being removed for being out of range.

This is true even if you misinterpret the OUT OF RANGE rule, as the OUT OF RANGE rule is entirely a rule of "allowance" - strictly speaking it does not affect the rules at all (merely allowing things that are already allowed and nowhere prevented), so it is quite ironically simply there for clarification.

Ehlijen is right that the first "model" in OUT OF RANGE is referring to a firing model.

Contrast the OUT OF RANGE rule with the OUT OF SIGHT rule; OUT OF RANGE says "ignore range in this situation", OUT OF SIGHT says "ignore wounds in this situation". There's no way to read OUT OF RANGE as "ignore wounds in this situation", regardless of what you argue "this situation" to be.

Gah. When the rule book read "out of range" I assumed it was referring to the target. In swedish I don't think you'd ever consider the SHOOTER to be out of range, that wording would be applied to the target I think. Or at least more commonly used that way.

Anyway. It can't be easy to write rules for a wargame. Most of the time they do better than this.

[ehlijen]

Still not sure how any other interpretation could work since the entire shooting section is written from the PoV of a shooting unit and uses "target" and "enemy" as synonyms. Yes it could be clearer and your modified version is, but the original isn't that hard to parse is it?

No other interpretation results in a sensible rule, as you say, but grammatically the first 'model' could theoritically have referred to either the shooting model or the target model.

[Mr_Rose]

No other interpretation results in a sensible rule, as you say, but grammatically the first 'model' could theoritically have referred to either the shooting model or the target model.

Grammatically yes, but in the context of the entire shooting section using "enemy" to mean the target unit it seems odd that they would switch it around in that one sentence just to make a nonsense rule.
But I think we're just arguing different degrees of the same side of this argument and confusing the issue here so…

[ehlijen]

The problem is in that section they use 'model' twice, both times with no qualifiers: once to refer to the shooting model, once to a target model. Confusion is understandable.

[Weazel]

Well if you think of this logically, the bullets don't just suddenly stop in the air...

If you're in range of the target unit (one model is enough) you can kill as many models as there are in line of sight. If you played it otherwise, shooting would just become way too tedious when bigger units (of shooters and targets) were involved.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

Eh, they could have easily said that models completely out of range are untouchable, just like models completely out of LoS. "Range sniping" was a thing in 4th edition precisely because of that, but 6th edition's casualty removal system makes that an entirely moot point.

[TheBearminator]

Well if you think of this logically, the bullets don't just suddenly stop in the air...

If you're in range of the target unit (one model is enough) you can kill as many models as there are in line of sight. If you played it otherwise, shooting would just become way too tedious when bigger units (of shooters and targets) were involved.

If you think of this logically, there is no reason why you suddenly can kill an enemy 30 inches away, just because he's unlucky enough to have some pals in front of him.

Personally I dislike the shooting mechanics (or rather the to hit rules) of 40k. Warhammer fantasy makes this job a lot better with bonuses for large targets and penalties for long range and being charged and so on. But in the end, I like the fluff and the races of 40k a lot more. I can live with simplified shooting rules.

[alextroy]

The section alextroy is referring to is unfortunately worded. It seems to indicate that a model can be safe from shooting if it is out of range from the shooter even though the unit as a whole was in range, but that makes no sense because casualty removal wouldn't ever change that.

How, I believe, it should have been written is this [my changes in brackets]:

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

If you count model as being the target model both times, the rule makes sense:

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

I suppose you can read the lack of a sentence telling you what to do if a model is out of range as allowing you to kill them, but that renders the presence of this rule completely meaningless.

[Mr_Rose]

If you count model as being the target model both times, the rule makes sense:

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

I suppose you can read the lack of a sentence telling you what to do if a model is out of range as allowing you to kill them, but that renders the presence of this rule completely meaningless.

Except the target model is the enemy (of the shooting unit) throughout the rest of the shooting rules, so what you're effectively saying is:

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

Which makes even less sense than having a rule that does nothing.