To be honest I can only imagine it affecting very strung out scouts, or maybe massive kults of speed that have a frontage of more than a foot. Or very badly deployed siegers

And yes I've only seen it int he 15-30 band as well.

Guard wise - anyone adding Leman Russ to their mech formations deserves some small boost to make up for it!

Or a Chimera's weapons streched to 75cm...

...but as TRC notes, nobody actually uses the Leman Russ upgrade as it's overpriced.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I included multilasers in my first statement so I'd covered Chimera's (I should have mentioned heavy bolters aswell).

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Ah, my excuse is that I am an idiot.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

LOL...
Certainly not mate.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Can someone please point out where 'range stretching' is allowed?

Looking in the latest rulebook from the GW website section 1.9.6 clearly states that hits can only be allocated on targets in range, the Errata is entirely the same as this, and nothing in the FAQ contradicts it.

I am just curious how people are justifying this.

It's basically allowed because of a "glitch" in the order of operations in which the shooting rules are applied.

After checking to see if a unit's weapons are in range to at least one enemy target, the hits from individual shooting units are not tracked, just put into a "pool" of hits that are allocated in the next step of the process. Since a longer ranged weapon has allowed a greater number of enemy units to be "in range" to the shooting formation, they all count as valid targets for hit allocation.

I don't really like it, and, honestly, it doesn't really seem to come up that often. We've often rolled different coloured dice for different range bands if things seem really wonky, but, again, it hasn't happened often enough in my experiences to be a significant issue.

With Tau, it comes up a lot.

I'm not the biggest fan either, to be honest I find all the rules lawyering that seems to be going on lately a massive turn off. If you can't win without trying to bend the rules then why bother??

But - just to clarify, a unit has to be in range (and line of sight) of at least one weapon to be allocated any hits and therefore removed as a casualty? Per 1.9.6? Even with range stretching?

I don't find there to be any rules lawyering going on when range stretching is used, being as "range stretching" is an intended part of the shooting rules.

Jervis clearly wanted to speed up the shooting process so that you didn't have to make up multiple stacks of hits and then allocate and save against each stack independently (Which would take two or three times as long), so instead of keeping track of multiple "hit stacks" you roll to hit, pool all hits, then allocate in blocks (normal, then MW, then TK). Simples.

If someone was levering in usages or effects from the rules that were never intended in the first place (Like that idea about War Engines barging enemy formations out of coherency so that half of the formation disappears in a poof of logic), then that is rules lawyering.


Yes.

To shoot, a weapon has to be in range and LOF of one enemy target of the correct Type*.
To be allocated a hit, a unit has to be in range and LOF of one enemy weapon**.

*AP or AT.
**Regardless of Type.


I can see various justifications for having the rules another way, but Jervis went for a rather abstract system in the case of shooting, clearly feeling that speed of play was more important than "granularity" in this case.

I mean, if you want granularity over speed of play, eventually you start measuring and allocating hits not just in "range blocks", but per weapon, which would take a long, long time.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I agree - and I am not talking about range stretching in particular (it is usually a small effect, if indeed it applies at all most of the time), but there is a lot of picking holes in the rules going on lately which I think is frankly disrespectful to your opponents, and drags the game overall down.

Thanks for clearing the second point up.

I think all this is going on as the exact opposite of disrespecting opponents; it's an effort to find out a generalized and acceptable interpretation of the rules so that it doesn't become an argument of "We don't play it *that* way in our group!" when one meets and plays with new people. Misinterpretations, misrememberings, misconceptions, and house rules can all muddy the waters.

In actually play, I've found everyone I've played with to be fun, fair, and understanding.

I think most people are indeed fair players as you say Chroma.
Personally though, some of the recent threads go far and beyond a simple misreading of the rules (or a different interpretation).

In a lot of cases, a situation comes up ingame which isn't clear, so it gets debated here afterwards. Very few people are actively trying to find loopholes to exploit.