Stand and shoot rule

Lol!  I had to!

Was this aimed at my comment just before this post?

Greg

Sorry mate you lost me with everything after Yes.

Thing is, that's gotta be wrong, sure it's another thng that's irrelevant quiet possibly but in the shooting phase if the front rank is in range it's the ONLY rank that can fire, the rear ranks don't prevent them firing as they are out of range. In your statement above the crossbows fire but the pistol won't, it's not a case of the pistol preventing the crossbows.

Anyway, I'll leave this (as pointed out by Mottdon), it seems you and Vintageof79 are having a much better discussion

FvonSigmaringen
In a different vein; using the viewpoint you espouse and I have used, would it be fair to say that all members of the unit can shoot and would count as being at long range if it was a unit of thunderers with a champ with pistols was charged from 20" away?

My point is exactly that: it must be wrong. A reductio ad absurdum disproves a proposition or premise by showing that it inevitably leads to an absurd or impossible conclusion. In essence, it shows that the proposition is self-defeating. 

Allow me to demonstrate this with ryryak’s suggestion that the unit’s max range could be thought of as the range of its shortest range weapon.

Premise 1:   The unit’s max range is the range of its shortest range weapon.
Premise 2:   A unit can never shoot further than its maximum range.
Conclusion:  A unit can never shoot further than the range of its shortest range weapon.

I think we all agree that that conclusion is false. We also know that premise 2 is absolutely true. Therefore, premise 1 must be false too.



You may have noticed that rules questions are often answered without quoting the actual rules. Often, the answer is just: Yes, you can/cannot. Rules discussions also seem to suffer regularly from the assumption that every opinion has equal weight, and that the majority must be correct. But that is an obvious fallacy. The weight of an opinion is dependent on its supporting arguments. Saying “we always played it like that” carries no weight whatsoever, unless it is followed by “because of X, Y, & Z in the rules.” 

So, how many fora you have visited have quoted the rule, have noticed the limitation in the first part of the sentence, and have provided any argument why it could/should be ignored?

As I have already remarked a couple of times before: many interpret this in fluff, not game terms. Does it make sense that all can fire at 12", but you add a negative modifier, because at 16" there is still an intervening unit providing cover? Does it make sense that you can shoot at a unit, which will never have been actually  in range at all? But that is what the rules tell you. Fluff sense is not game sense. As also remarked in an earlier post, if they had wanted to make more fluff sense, they could have come up with a system similar to the Fanatics. But they did not. And whatever one make think makes sense, that still needs to be supported by something in the rules.



Yes.

Exactly: you can make that assumption, precisely because the rules state that in as many words. But even if the rules had not included that assumption, you still would be able to fire, because they say you can. Warhammer is a permissive system: it tells you what you can do. If you do not have a rule specifically telling you that you can, you cannot.