Yeah, this one:
Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)? (p15) A: No
The above ruling is creating quite a stir among 40k players at the moment. I am not sure if ruling is the right word as this rule has never existed in the last 40k rules editions and why was it shoe horned in now? On P16 under the 'Out of Range' header the rules say the opposite, basically it says if a model was in range when rolling to hit was made, then the model is considered in range for the duration of the shooting attack even if removal of causalities means the closest model is now out of range.
Then you get the above in the recent FAQ. At first glance it tells you the opposite; if a model is out of range when rolling to hit then wounds cannot be allocated to it.
Having a more indepth look you see this rule is a load of bollocks. Firstly it has added something which has never existed. Then it has changed what is said in the rulebook and thirdly it doesn't even make sense! The word 'of' is missing between range and any and the word 'model' after targeted should be models.
The FAQ should really read:
Q: Can wounds from the wound pool be allocated to models that were not within range of the shooting models when to hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted models are in the shooting models' range and half are not)?
A: No
With
slight tidying up we are getting some sense. Basically the FAQ says if any of the shooting models are not in range then wounds cannot be applied. So for example 10 x Tactical Marines are firing just under 24" at 20 x Ork Boyz, out of the Boyz only 3 are in range, but the Orks take 5 wounds. These 5 wounds can only be applied to the 3 Boyz in range and that's it.