First, a quickie -
Which of the following would you prefer at the 40k GT, given just the two choices:
A) Playing 2 rounds Friday, starting at 2PM, and 4 rounds Saturday, starting at 7:30AM
B) Playing 3 rounds Friday, starting at 10:30AM, and 3 rounds Saturday, starting at 10:30AM
So far, we've had nothing but answers for option B, b/c having to leave to arrive in time for readiness at 2PM has about the same impact on day off requests / etc. as for 10:30AM (namely, that you probably have to take Friday off). Simultaneously, Option A creates a much more relaxed pair of primary GT days.
We're also adding an option on the Round 6 scorecard to opt out of Rounds 7 and 8, instead of eliminating players. Everyone who attends will be freely able to play Rounds 7 and 8, have them count, play within appropriate bracketing, etc. etc. You simply won't HAVE to, should you wish to do something else with your Sunday (we have a lot of Sunday-only activities, seminars, vendors, and there's Washington DC to tour as well).
ON TO THE CONTROVERSY! This one seems like more of a "silly" vs. "RAW" argument ... than an argument about what exactly the rules say. They're pretty clear I *think* ...
I do want to state that I'm a fan of following RAW as long as the RAW is clear. I don't care if it's SILLY (there's a LOT OF SILLY RULES that we all don't even think to question, let's not talk about what's silly). All I care about is whether it's clear. I see it that way here, and the argument to follow from 11th Co forums, where I wrote it up a little bit ago ...
You know, I'm joining this late. I don't know why I'm joining it, but the RAW here is clear. I'm not a fan of ALWAYS using RAW, but I don't see any issues in this particular one ... other than people not liking the impact of taking a longer-ranged weapon to "extend" weapon ranges on the rest (Which seems silly, but so does a TON of stuff in this particular game full of 8 foot tall super futuristic space-faring immortal superhumans in bullet-proof mega armor who still fire WW2 bazookas with no guidance systems whatsoever).
The ruling refers to the range applying to ANY that fired. It further references from within the Wound Pool.
There are NEVER multiple Wound Pools. There are only separate wound groups (and they're called that) within the pool.
Range determination in the rulebook makes it quite clear that you
1) Determine who is in range, which is that each firing model must be in range of AT LEAST ONE enemy model
2) Roll to hit and wound3) Create your wound pool; the Wound Pool is a singular thing, never multiple for the unit firing. Within the Wound Pool, if NECESSARY, you create separate groups based upon Strength, AP, or special rules. You do not separate even wound GROUPS based upon range. These new groups are explicitly referred to as all being within THE pool.4) You allocate and resolve wounds until the Pool is empty
Now, following these rules, there's a SUBSEQUENT rule under the heading "Out of Range." This hasn't been REMOVED by the FAQ, so you apply it, and we'll then apply the FAQ afterward. It is still an in-play rule, that is simply affected by the FAQ, not removed by it or rewritten by it (or even mentioned by it).
This rule states that you continue to remove models via wound allocation, EVEN IF doing so places the closest model out of range. This is where we get the ability PRE-FAQ to kill anybody in a unit, so long as at least one model is in range of those models who fire.
In comes the FAQ.
If enemy models are out of range of ANY firing weapon, they can no longer be removed. Note, it does not say anything about singular weapons, or weapons with different ranges, or anything else. Further, it refers to allocation of wounds from the wound pool, but determination of range by simply weapons in range of those that rolled to hit. So you don't even need to have a wound in the pool from an in-range weapon. You need simply amend the above process with the fact that any model out of range of ANY firing weapon cannot be touched. All models within range of even ONE firing weapon are fair game for ALL firing weapons.
This also creates the simplest way to deal with what would otherwise be an overly complex rule (as people are hinting at), where somehow each firing model is treated independently, as if it generates its own wound POOL (when at most, it generates its own wound GROUP). You have to REWRITE the rules or take a W.A.G. at what future FAQ's may be to apply a moderator that creates separate wound POOLS instead of the excplicitly clear situation now of groups being all inclusive w/in the singular pool.