So it has come to my attention that there are models that can’t be hit by blast weapons because they are too large. Seems kind of odd to me but let me run this past everyone and see what you guys think.

So in the blast rules, it says something to the effect of ‘Models that have their bases fully under the blast template are hit automatically while those that are partially under the template are hit on a 4+’. So what happens when the primary target of the template has a base that is larger than the template (bikes, monstrous creatures, and the like)? It would seem that the RAW would state that these models could only ever be partialed. Is this just yet another odd rule inconsistency or is there something I’m missing?

Page 65 of the rulebook covers blast markers against vehicles. If the hole is over the vehicle, it's hit at full Strength. If the hole is not over the vehicle, it's hit at half-Strength.

Nurglitch, what does that have to do with the question?

Phoenix, it does indeed seem that such models can only ever be partialled. It is kind of silly. The fact that it isn't raised much probably just goes to show how ill-favoured and seldom-used blast weapons are in 4th. At least 5th gets that right.

It is a loophole. I have always played if the hole is over your models base, like say a carnifex, that it is hit automatically.

The question is whether models can be too big to be automatically hit by blast markers, or whether the original poster has missed something.

On page 65 of the rulebook we are given a situation where a model is too big to be covered entirely by a blast marker. In that situation the model is automatically hit; at full Strength if the hole is over the model, and a half-Strength is the hole is not over the model.

Hence the original poster has missed something, the fact that Warhammer 40k 4th edition does address this situation and that people claiming that models larger than a blast template can only be hit on a 4+ because they are only partially under the template are full of it.

It's understandable, however, that one might miss this, and it certainly seems that the upcoming 5th edition replaces this mess with something less easily abused.

On page 65, we are told how to resolve blast markers against vehicles. That is all.

The problem isn't just vehicles.

40k4 allows players to increase a model's base size without bound. So legally, a Grot can be mounted on a 3.1" base, which would only be partially covered by a 3" blast template.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem isn't just vehicles.

40k4 allows players to increase a model's base size without bound. So legally, a Grot can be mounted on a 3.1" base, which would only be partially covered by a 3" blast template.

DUDE! Grots on termie bases. Rofl!

I never saw it as an inconsistency, but rather as simply a reflection of a particularly large model's ability to absorb more damage...

That said, when combined with the basing rules, it does potentially lead to silliness. I really wish they would just publish a standard base size chart.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:On page 65, we are told how to resolve blast markers against vehicles. That is all.

Oh, well, if you say so.

Nurglitch wrote:Page 65 of the rulebook covers blast markers against vehicles. If the hole is over the vehicle, it's hit at full Strength. If the hole is not over the vehicle, it's hit at half-Strength.

While that is the case with vehicles, I am more concerned with models that have a toughness value and a large base.

Phoenix wrote:So what happens when the primary target of the template has a base that is larger than the template (bikes, monstrous creatures, and the like)?

I guess I could have been more specific.

Nurglitch wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:On page 65, we are told how to resolve blast markers against vehicles. That is all.

Oh, well, if you say so.

not really if you say so now is it. you have quoted a rule for only vehicles, not partials on models with wounds. Maybe a "yes your right" or "i see you point" wouldn't come amiss.

fullheadofhair: Quoting the rule in question would involve, well, quoting it. I cited the page number of something that Phoenix (and apparently at least one other) is missing.

So what's up with this page? Well, on this page you have an example of what the phrase "bases partially covered by the blast marker" found on page 30 ("Blast Weapons") means. Some people seem to take the Blast Weapon rules to mean that the model's base must fall entirely within the area described by the Blast Marker. These people would be wrong.

As the information regarding vehicles on p.65 shows, since the vehicle is hit regardless of whether it is entirely covered by the blast marker or not, the relation "partially covered by" is not used synonymously with any phrase like 'not completely covered by'. Since this information is background to the specifics of how the vehicle is hit, it can be taken as an assumption of the rules in general, and hence generalized to cover all instances of the rules covering blast markers.

Seeing as when a Blast weapon hits something its hole is placed over a model in the unit it hit, we know that such a model is, by definition, "completely covered" regardless of whether its entire base fits into the area of the Blast Marker or not.

Stelek wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem isn't just vehicles.

40k4 allows players to increase a model's base size without bound. So legally, a Grot can be mounted on a 3.1" base, which would only be partially covered by a 3" blast template.

DUDE! Grots on termie bases. Rofl!

CDs - 5.25" in diameter.

I think the biggest base size loop hole is Models with 24" by 1" bases getting out of a transport and then charging across the board turn one. Madness.

On a smaller scale is mounting unit leaders on termie bases to increase charge range out of a vehicle by 1/2". Lots of people do this to show off cool basing or show importance, so as long as you make the base snazzy enough, I doubt anyone would call you on it. lol. Yay GW!

-Leo037

That's why the INAT faq ruled the way it did.

Though I do not have my Apocalypse rulebook with me, I think it would be useful for those that do to refer to the section regarding Gargantuan creatures and hitting them with blast weaponry.

I know this is not part of the normal ruleset, but my local gaming group play it as - if the blast marker is completely over the enemy base, then it is a hit, and the unit in question is affected. So, for something with a massive base footprint, like a Hierophant, the only way for someone to miss using 5th Edition's 2d6 - BS Scattering rules for blast weapons, the firer in question would need to roll very poorly for the marker to be considered a partial or not a hit at all.

Units mounted on large bases should never be handed what is essentially a 4+ saving throw just because the blast marker is not large enough to completely cover them.

CK

Nurglitch, let's look at what the page actually says.

"If the hole in the middle of the Blast Marker is not over the Vehicle but the Blast marker is, then [some stuff about Strength, nothing about how it is hit].

When a vehicle is hit by a non-barrage weapon with a Blast marker or Large Blast marker (including ordnance), [some stuff about AV facings, nothing about how it is hit].

In the case of a barrage weapon of any kind, if the hole in the middle of the Blast marker ends over the vehicle, the shot is assumed to hit the side of the vehicle that faces the firer, otherwise the attack is assumed to hit the vehicle from the direction of the hole in the Blast marker."

Any exception to the 4+ rule stated here? Yes, in the barrage section, and when applied to vehicles. No otherwise. (If you think there is an exception, please quote the sentences that state it.)

And then there's the diagramme. It shows a Pred with a large Blast marker half covering its side, but with the hole not over it. Caption: "The Predator has been hit by a Large Blast marker, but the strength of the shot [blah blah]." What does it tell us? That the Predator has been hit. How has it been hit? Automatically? Or on a 4+? We can't tell.

We can tell, if we deign to examine the handy diagrams provided for our amusement and elucidation: the Predator has been hit because it is partially covered by the Blast Marker.

If you're a non-vehicle unit:

Partial Coverage = Affected on a 4+
Total Coverage = Affected

If you're a vehicle:

Touched by a template/blast = Affected
(in what capacity they are affected is irrelevant, only the fact that they are affected.)

Tautology, I know, but I felt it was important for it to be laid out in speech not used by the high-falutin'.

CK

Page 65 is very clear. You can see in the 4th paragraph that if the center of the blast marker is touching the vehicle, then it is hit.
This rule also applies to weapons such as missile launchers, death spitters, and plasma cannons. When rolling to hit for these weapons, you either hit dead on, or nothing at all. These weapons are incapable of scoring a partial hit, so the strength of their shot is never halved.

Centurian99 wrote:That's why the INAT faq ruled the way it did.

I don't know what that is, but I always measure from the leading edge. So leading edge has to be 2" from the transport door. You can't put the trailing edge 2" away giving you a greater than 2" disembarkment. If that makes any sense.

Nurglitch, the diagramme shows the Pred with a blast marker touching it, and then tells us that it has been hit. Does this mean that having been touched by a marker always means a vehicle has been hit? No. Compare this with the diagramme on page 39, for example: it shows us some Marines engaged with some Guardians, and tells us that "Space Marine A attacks first because his Initiative is increased to 10 due to being in cover." Does this follow simply from the diagramme? Does a model strike at I10 every time it is in cover? No. We must assume that the Guardians charged the Marines rather than the Marines charging the Guardians or either party consolidating into the other.

I'll happily grant that the diagramme shows what you think it shows, however, because it actually shows how absurd your argument is. You say the rules on page 65 tell us that when a model is too large to be fully covered by a Blast/Large Blast marker, it is considered hit when the hole in the marker is over its base. Do you also hold, then, that page 65 tells us that when a model is too large to be fully covered by the marker, it is considered automatically hit, but at half Strength, when the hole is not over its base?

Phoenix wrote:So it has come to my attention that there are models that can’t be hit by blast weapons because they are too large.

Is this just yet another odd rule inconsistency or is there something I’m missing?

Am I missing something? When would this ever come up?

In 40k the largest base is 60mm (the one for carnfexs, wraithlords, heavy weapons teams, etc. ) and the small blast template completely covers it. If you are dealing with items from Apocalypse, you will have to consult those rules.

Well, there's vehicles...

Blackmoor, a 40k base can legally be of unlimited biggitude.

Nurglitch: Vehicles are not measured by a base, but rather by their hull. In other words, in game terms, vehicles do not have bases that are used.

So no, the way blasts and vehicles work has no bearing on the way blasts and non-vehicles work.

Sure it does. The only things that are too large to be completely covered are vehicles, and different rules apply to them than models mounted on bases. Hence if we are to complain that some bases are too big to be automatically hit by Blast weapons, then we have invented a problem with no basis in the rules.

I don't see why you're having such an issue with this nurglich.

The rules for base size only say you have to use a minimum base size for a model, not a maximum size. They say the minimum size is what comes in the box with the model.

This means I can mount my models on CDs or Frisbees or Trashcan lids if I want. All of these bases are significantly larger than even the large blast template.

Since the base is larger than the template, it cannot be covered by the template. Based on the rules, if you're not covered by the template you can only get partially hit.

I understand that this is a situation that never actually comes up, but that is not the point - the point is, based on the rules for blasts, partial hits, and base size, there is a loophole in the rules. I'm not sure if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of having such a large base, but again thats not the point.

Rule: bases can be any size, so long as they're big enough for the model.

Rule: if your base isn't covered, you get partially hit.

Vehicles obviously have their own rules for blasts and don't really have bases that matter and are not part of the question or the discussion

pretty straightforward I think.

It's a good thing that this won't matter in about two months.

CK

Maybe I'm not having an issue with this, and maybe there's no loophole in the rules. I'm just throwing that out there, you know, as a hypothetical you may not have considered. Just maybe.

As Blackmoor has helpfully pointed out, the biggest base size you might get in a box of GW merchandize is 60mm. Therefore, as the rule applies, when you get a box of models on 40mm bases you can put them on 60mm bases (as I've down with my Chaos Spawn, for example), but you cannot put them on 25mm bases.

Arguing that you could mount these models on 80cm bases is like arguing that Orks standing in for Space Marines can't use the Bolters they are carrying because they are not WYSIWYG, or arguing that a model carrying a Bolt Pistol can fire its Lascannon twice if it does not move: pretty straightforwardly wrong.

The rule, as written:

"you can mount them on something bigger if you wish, but not something smaller".

Thats it, thats the whole rule for how big your base can be.

I do not see why you would interpret this to mean "something bigger, so long as it's not bigger than a base we produce". Maybe there's somewhere else in the rules that supports this. Otherwise, you can make your base as big as you want.

I've actually only encountered this once, as a friend has a bike model who's base is slightly longer than the width of the small blast template, so it doesn't fit. I guess we should just have him re-base it, since this can't actually happen!

Nurglitch wrote:The only things that are too large to be completely covered are vehicles, and different rules apply to them than models mounted on bases. Hence if we are to complain that some bases are too big to be automatically hit by Blast weapons, then we have invented a problem with no basis in the rules.

Incorrect, because there is no upper limit to how large a model's base may be. The rules say I may increase the model's base size without restriction.

Therefore, Grots may be validly mounted on CD-sized (5.25") bases which are too big to be automatically hit by any Blast weapon.

This is not an "invented" problem. This is an actual problem tied to the basing rules in the rulebook.

Nurglitch wrote:As Blackmoor has helpfully pointed out, the biggest base size you might get in a box of GW merchandize is 60mm.

Arguing that you could mount these models on 80cm bases

The largest "base" that GW produces is either the WFB Chariot Base or WFB Giant Base, approximately 2" x 4".

But that doesn't matter, because the basing rule does not specify that the base must be round or GW-sourced. So that is irrelevant.

So one can legally mount models on 130mm bases if one so desires.

Nope, Warhammer 40k uses round bases, of which there are only small bases, large bases, and extra large bases: http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=301080&orignav=300810&GameNav=300810

Since the rule addresses basing, and 60mm is the largest base available for Warhammer 40k, your arguments that the rules specify no upper limit have no merit.

Nurglitch wrote:Nope, Warhammer 40k uses round bases,

Care to provide a rule to back that up?

Because page 9 of the rulebook would appear to disagree...

Nice of you to ignore the Bikes, which are on rectangular Cavalry bases...

Also, are we to interpret your argument that the lack of a specific model or bit as somehow invalidating rules?

By extension of your flawed logic, one must conclude that SM cannot use Drop Pods because GW doesn't sell any such model in their online store.

insaniak: Let me get this straight. I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40k models come with round bases, and that is the basing referred to by the rules. And you're asking for a rule to back that up?

Asking for a rule to back that up is like asking for the rule in the English version of the Warhammer 40k book that says we should read the text as English rather than in a superficially similar language called Anglach. The fact is that the rules are to be understood in the framework of material they are presented in.

The fact that there are square bases in the pictures on page 9 is about as relevant to the discussion as pictures of a Falcon's flying base used to prove that vehicles have bases. Mostly because I'm not talking about a rule in the rulebook and I'm talking about the referents of those rules, but also because those pictures show bases small enough to fit within the area of a Blast marker. Show me that Space Marine bikes are sold with square bases and you might have something relevant.

The fact is that within the framework of products provided by GW, there is no situation in which something is too large to be fully covered by a Blast weapon. As positive proof the rules involving Blast markers requires that they hit before they are place and any additional hits are counted, and as corroborating evidence we have the fact that no Warhammer 40k base is larger than a Blast maker.

If you want to move outside of that framework into home-brew where rules are selectively applied and you can base models on any old plate you have lying around, don't expect the problems you encounter to be a property of the rules. Expect them to be made-up problems, just like silly buggers with proxies and WYSIWYG or selective reading of the ranged weapons rules. Of course the rules are going to have problems if you just make up about them.

Nurglitch wrote:Show me that Space Marine bikes are sold with square bases and you might have something relevant.

I have purchased SM bikes in the single Marine kit, the CSM single bike kit, and the Dark Angels three pack. All included square cav bases for mounting.

If you are looking for an official GW picture of a 40k model on a square base, try these Rough Riders:

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=301866&orignav=301304&ParentID=6363&GameNav=10

If you are playing with someone with a huge base, you have other problems than what do you do if you can't fit a blast template over it.

If you see across the board from you a grot mounted on a CD, or a model on a pie tin you should just walk away.

There is a story about some Ork trukks at the UKGT a couple of years ago that were modeled to be 2' long. That way when they pivoted they started out an aditional 1' forward. I do not need to tell you that the judges banned those vehicles.

JohnHwangDD: Well, I suppose if I was using that "flawed logic" stuff you're babbling about, it sure would be stupid. I mean, after all, "flawed logic" sure sounds like it would involve fallacious reasoning, and fallacious reasoning is stupid no matter how smart its user is. Fortunately that's simply a straw-man you've pulled out of your rear-end. On the bright side, you are no doubt more comfortably having divested yourself of such an irritation.

So let me help you out here. I'm not saying that models are rules. That would be slowed. I'm saying that where the rules reference specific GW products, they are limited by those products.

So naturally saying that "one must conclude that SM cannot use Drop Pods because GW doesn't sell any such model in their online store" misconstrues my point about how models and rules interact (you gotta have models, for one thing), and thus draws a ridiculous conclusion.

Since my actual argument is that Blackmoor has a good point. GW sells these things called "bases" and none of them are larger than a Blast template, and since the rules refer to these "bases" which can always be completely covered, then situations where a model won't be entirely covered lie outside of the rules.

Alpharius Walks: Thank you. Now, given that some Warhammer 40k models are sold with square 'cavalry', does that mean that any Warhammer products come with bases that cannot be fully covered by a Blast Marker?

For what it is worth, below is an example of a GW article encouraging you to build custom bases with dimensions of approximately 80x40mm:

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/darkangels/painting/bases/default.htm

The genesis of this article being that bikes look silly on the provided cav bases.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40k models come with round bases,

And I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40K models don't all come with round bases.

and that is the basing referred to by the rules. And you're asking for a rule to back that up?

Exactly. If round bases are what is being referred to by the rules, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide a rule that does so.

Mostly because I'm not talking about a rule in the rulebook

So... the rules refer to round bases, but don't actually do so in the rules...

That's seriously the point you're trying to make?

What that's worth is the same as making your own base of any dimensions: kind of irrelevant to the point that GW's rules refer to GW's products. Of course you can make your own base that won't fit completely under a Blast Marker, you just can't attribute any problems resulting from that home-made base to be a problem with the game as published.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak: I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40k models come with round bases, and that is the basing referred to by the rules. And you're asking for a rule to back that up?

The fact that there are square bases in the pictures on page 9 is about as relevant to the discussion as pictures of a Falcon's flying base used to prove that vehicles have bases.

Mostly because I'm not talking about a rule in the rulebook and I'm talking about the referents of those rules, but also because those pictures show bases small enough to fit within the area of a Blast marker.

Show me that Space Marine bikes are sold with square bases and you might have something relevant.

The fact is that within the framework of products provided by GW, there is no situation in which something is too large to be fully covered by a Blast weapon.

As positive proof the rules involving Blast markers requires that they hit before they are place and any additional hits are counted, and as corroborating evidence we have the fact that no Warhammer 40k base is larger than a Blast maker.

Wow, you get awfully snippy when you're trying to defend an opinion that has no basis in the rules whatsoever...

I think insaniak is well within his rights to request you to provide a rules basis for this additional modeling condition that you're conjuring out of thin air. The fact that GW doesn't happen to sell a large round plastic base is no more relevant than than the fact that they don't sell a Drop Pod model. In either case, it would be up to the player to construct what they consider appropriate. If that means a 130mm base or a Drop Pod, so be it.

The fact that square (25mm) bases are being used is illustrative because a square 25mm base is indeed larger than a round 25mm base, therefore it is a valid and legal basing option. That means that the whole range of GW bases are available, which includes Chariot and Giant bases.

Unless, of course, you can point to an actual rule that says that 40k bases must be round, and specificially created for 40k, ignoring Bikes and Cavalry.

And I'll have you know that, back in the day, the RT-era SM Dreadnoughts; the RT-era Chaos Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes; Eldar Avatar, War Walker, and Wraithlords; Ogryns, etc. and other large models *all* were shipped on square bases, usually 40mm squares. These models are still valid, and by the letter of the rule, use the bases that were supplied with them. Square-cornered bases are now Fantasy bases; therefore, by extension, WFB square-cornered bases would remain valid for upgrades.

The fact is, you haven't got a leg to stand on. You are treating personal opinion as unsupported fact.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And I'll have you know that, back in the day, the RT-era SM Dreadnoughts; the RT-era Chaos Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes; Eldar Avatar, War Walker, and Wraithlords; Ogryns, etc. and other large models *all* were shipped on square bases, usually 40mm squares.

Ogryns, the Avatar, Killa Kans and Big Gunz were all still shipping with 40mm squares during the first couple of years of 4th edition, in fact...

Nurglitch wrote:Alpharius Walks: Thank you. Now, given that some Warhammer 40k models are sold with square 'cavalry', does that mean that any Warhammer products come with bases that cannot be fully covered by a Blast Marker?

As a matter of fact....it means exactly that, because there are several bases that cannot be covered by the blast marker.

- cavalry bases
- 60mm round bases
- 50mm square bases
- Chariot bases

Do you even read what you are writing?

JohnHwangDD: Oh, I don't know, you might get a little frustrated yourself if you had to deal with someone who insisted that you were talking about stuff that has a basis in the rules. I'm not. I'm not saying that I am. You are, but then you're not interested in

I'm saying, in regards to whether a model might be too big to completely cover with a Blast Marker, that given the materials referred to by the rules this problem will never arise.

Incidentally if you want something with a basis in the rules, see my earlier argument about how Blast Markers automatically hit at least one model.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Oh, I don't know, you might get a little frustrated yourself if you had to deal with someone who insisted that you were talking about stuff that has a basis in the rules. I'm not.

So... when you claimed that the rules of 40K refer to round bases, that wasn't actually talking about the rules?


That's a handy argument. I'll have to borrow it next game...
"Yeah, the rules of 40K refer to my Rapid Fire weapons shooting 17 times each phase. No, that's not actually in the rules, but it doesn't have to be, because I speak English. It's nothing to do with the rules, it just is..."

whitedragon: Sure I do. In fact I pulled out one of my Blast Markers and some bases and measured them. 50mmx25mm bases, 50mmx50mm, and 60mm round bases all fit comfortably under the Blast Marker.

Neither chariot bases nor regiment bases to, but since those are not 40k products, they can be ignored.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Well, I suppose if I was using that "flawed logic" stuff you're babbling about, it sure would be stupid.

So let me help you out here. I'm not saying that models are rules. That would be slowed. I'm saying that where the rules reference specific GW products, they are limited by those products.

So naturally saying that "one must conclude that SM cannot use Drop Pods because GW doesn't sell any such model in their online store" misconstrues my point about how models and rules interact (you gotta have models, for one thing), and thus draws a ridiculous conclusion.

Since my actual argument is that Blackmoor has a good point. GW sells these things called "bases" and none of them are larger than a Blast template, and since the rules refer to these "bases" which can always be completely covered, then situations where a model won't be entirely covered lie outside of the rules.

Agreed...

OK, now *exactly* where is the rule that limits the bases to those specific GW products you've referenced?

It is a fact that GW sold 40k models not using round bases, and by the initial part of the rule, choosing to use the original base, they are valid bases.

As for your point about models and rules, it makes no sense. You are artificially limiting the GW base selection where no limitation is stated or implied by the rules. Yet, by your own admission, GW's rules allow for players to create things (e.g. Drop Pods) in the absence of a specific model. Therefore, it is valid for a player to create an extra-large base in the absence of an extra-large base being sold by GW.

When we look at the full range of bases available from GW, there are at least 2 of them that are too large for a 3" Blast Marker to cover fully, and those bases are quite possibly too large for even the 5" Large Blast Marker to cover. The desire to exclude these bases forces you into all sorts of contortions to include Rough Riders but not allow them to upgrade to Chariot Bases.

While I wouldn't use the word "stupid", as you've done, when I look at your argument, I must conclude that it is fatally flawed.

insaniak: Quite correct. When I said that the rules referred to the bases sold by GW I wasn't talking about the rules, I was talking about what the rules referred to.

However, your pathetic attempt at ridicule falls flat. Your opponent would rightly sneer in your face if you tried that without previously agreeing with him to play in that stupid manner. You fail, yet again, to understand the difference between making s*** up and applying the rules.

Just like there are Space Marine miniatures referred to by the rules, there are bases referred to by the rules.

JohnHwangDD: I'm not sure why you keep asking for a rule that doesn't exist. I'm not saying that there is a rule defining the maximum dimensions of a base. No such rule is needed, since the official bases exist to define their own maximum size.

Indeed, requiring such rules about rules is, as I've pointed out, really stupid because no such rules exist in the game. Saying that although a Warhammer 40k rulebook written in English has no rule in it requiring it to be understood in English places no artificial restraint on what language in which the rules are to be read.

One important difference between rules referring to bases and the rules referring to Drop Pods are referring to something that GW does not produce an official model for. The rules referring to bases refer to things that you can pick up in any GW store, online, and at independent retailers.

Now of course players can make extra-large bases just as they can make their own Drop Pods as they can make up their own rules. So what? And where they make their own Drop Pods and extra-large bases, and any other materials for which there is no official GW product that they reference, then any weirdness that crops up in the rules involving those home-made additions to the game is not a problem with the game.

Of course, the interesting thing about all this is that even where one steps outside of the official rules and equipment to make a base that cannot be completely covered by a Blast Marker a single-model unit that is hit by a Blast weapon cannot be ret-conned as a model that is only partially covered.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak: Quite correct. When I said that the rules referred to the bases sold by GW I wasn't talking about the rules, I was talking about what the rules referred to.

And yet with all of your attempted sidestepping, you have yet to provide anything that backs up your claim that 40K only allows the use of round bases.

However, your pathetic attempt at ridicule falls flat. Your opponent would rightly sneer in your face if you tried that without previously agreeing with him to play in that stupid manner.

Of course they would. Just the same way they would if I tried to claim that their square-based Avatar was somehow breaking the rules...

Excellent job of missing the point there, by the way.

You fail, yet again, to understand the difference between making s*** up and applying the rules.

...says the guy claiming that the rules only allow round bases...

insaniak: I'm not sidestepping, I'm simply pointing out that, as Blackmoor pointed out, the bases sold as part of Warhammer 40k products all fit completely under a Blast marker.

Likewise I'll point out that I'm not claiming that the rules only allow round bases. Fortunately Alpharius Walks is more attentive than you have been so far, and noticed that. Perhaps, unlike you, he also noticed that I agreed some Warhammer 40k products included cavalry bases.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak: I'm not sidestepping, I'm simply pointing out that, as Blackmoor pointed out, the bases sold as part of Warhammer 40k products all fit completely under a Blast marker.

Which is sidestepping, since what you were asked for is a reference that backs up your initial claim that 40K requires round bases.

Perhaps, unlike you, he also noticed that I agreed some Warhammer 40k products included cavalry bases.

No, I noticed that. Which is why I'm wondering why you're still sidestepping the point. Simply admitting that you were wrong would have been easier.


The simple fact is that the rules don't require round bases, nor do they require GW bases.

They state that the base supplied is the smallest base allowed, but that you can mount the miniature on something larger.

Anything else is simply you trying to make stuff up.

Except that I admitted that some Warhammer 40k bases were square (well, retangular) quite some time ago while I was replying to Alpharius Walks, so I'm rather confused why you can't get back to the topic I'm arguing about.

I'm not arguing about the rules, I'm arguing about the materials that they refer to. Asking me to refer to a rule when I'm not talking about rules is pointless. Taken out of context the Warhammer 40k rules concerning basing do indeed allow you to use square bases and non-GW products as bases.

Taken in context, the Warhammer 40k rules refer to the line of Warhammer 40k products that GW produces. The term "Space Marines" in the rules refers to little plastic objects sold as Space Marines and so on. Of those little plastic objects there are things called "bases", to which the rules refer. Of these bases none are larger than the Blast Marker.

In that context, the context to which the rules refer, given the fancy name of "universe of discourse" in them fancy logic-learnin' places, you'll never encounter the situation where some based model is too big to be entirely under the Blast Maker. It's, perhaps fortunately, a tautology to say that universal statements such as those made by the rules refer only to the entirety of their own universe, but it's what requires us to consider what the dimensions of these 'base' things actually are.

Anyone can go out there and check the assumptions I've made about the existence of bases, their place in the same product line as the Warhammer 40k rules, and the area of those bases in comparison to another product called a Blast Marker.

But hey, keep arguing the controversy, at least it's amusing to read.

Is a non-GW D6 still a D6?

Is a non-GW base still a base?

If your two answers do not agree, why not? Why does the BGB exclude non-GW products from its UD in one instance and not the other?

When is a door a jar?

Is a white horse still a horse?

Of course a non-GW D6 is a D6. If you want to know what GW rules are referring to when they blither on about D6 this and D6 that, go to a GW store and ask them to sell you a D6. You can find identical objects, usually for much less, at many non-GW retail outlets.

Does that mean that a non-GW base is not a base? In general terms, of course not. In the specific Warhammer 40k terms the base referred to by the rules are the objects that GW sells as bases. As with the GW-dice, if you can find identical objects sold by non-GW entities, those can also be referred to as bases by the Warhammer 40k rules.

The BGB does not exclude non-GW products, since the question of who produces such products is not relevant to a matter of what sort of objects the rules refer to. But if you want to know what the Space Marine miniatures referred to by the Warhammer 40k rules are, you go find the item in the product line that is labelled "Space Marine". Any item that looks exactly like that is a Space Marine, and, not incidentally, that is why certain intellectual property laws exist - because so far as things like the Warhammer 40k rules are concerned origin takes a back-seat to shape and size.

You are using the term "identical" disingenuously. Dice which I think we can all agree ualify as D6es can be large or small, rounded or not, have their pips drilled in or not (or have Arabic or Roman numerals instead of pips), and so on. What degree of resemblance is sufficient? What is the quiddity of the D6? Clearly things like size, colour, minor details of shape, the means by which the number is displayed and so on are not essential to D6ness. What is your basis for deciding that exact similitude in shape and size to a GW base are essential to baseness (ha)?

I assure you that I am quite sincere in my use of the term "identical". Sameness is what we should be looking for, and sharing relevant identity criteria is sameness for that frame of reference.

The rules declare "area" and "size" the salient properties of a base on page 6 of the rulebook, hence we can ignore properties like weight, viscosity, grueness, and flavour. The referents, grouped as they are by size and shape, agree with the rules.

A base is the same size and shape as a GW base, when it is as different in these regards from a GW base as a GW base is from a GW base.

how can you be so stupid -- if a blast marker hits a model (be it tank or troop) and the center of the marker is over the base he is hit end of story -- the whole thing about it covering part of the base if the center hole is over the first model and the blast marker covers part of another one -- it seems to me like you are just trying to twist the wording of the rules to cheese yourself into a winning ----sorry about the rant

Oh my god you're all completely silly. Nurglitch, you're using logic which has no place with the people that say "POINT TO THE RULE!" in which case no matter what, if there isn't a line in a GW official source that says "this situation is handled this way" they won't actually accept any sort of linking or combining of words and text to figure out the way to do things.

Answer: No, there's no handling of the situation in the rulebook. Tell your friend that models on really large bases get hit if the hole is over the center because if they don't then they're being rules lawyers and they're an inch away from losing an opponent that doesn't enjoy playing with people that are that stingy.

Or if you see it that way as well, agree that yes bigger models get an additional 4+ "dodge save" that allows them to avoid blast weapons and move on.

Nurglitch: The vehicle reasoning doesn't work not only because it's vehicle rules and not normal models, but because the vehicles are also auto-hit if the center hole is NOT over the model's base, they're just hit at half strength. So pointing out that the model is hit if the hole covers it isn't quite right because that's not the case for every model.

Just talk to your group about how to handle it.

Oh, and if someone is basing their models on base sizes different from GW's standards, I would discuss during the game how to treat them, and insist that for blast marker consideration, they count as their original base size. And if they have a problem with it, tough.

-Spellbound

You know, if GW simply had had the presence of mind to state that GW models can only be based on official GW bases, this whole silly debacle would never have had started...

The Chaos Bikes I bought at my store last month came with bases that are larger than the small blast marker by about 1/2 a cm. It is not possible for the small blast marker to completely cover these bikes with the bases provided by GW.

Per RAW, the unit can only take a partial hit. You will have to house rule it if you want different behavior.

Blackmoor wrote:Am I missing something? When would this ever come up?

In 40k the largest base is 60mm (the one for carnfexs, wraithlords, heavy weapons teams, etc. ) and the small blast template completely covers it. If you are dealing with items from Apocalypse, you will have to consult those rules.

Came up when I was shooting the tempest launcher from my reaper exarch at a bike squad that was mounted on 3'x1' bases (or something very close to that). Since the bases were as long as the diameter of the blast marker, there were always some corners that would poke out the side even if the blast marker was directly over the center of the base.

Obviously, the solution is to ban Bikes from 5th Edition...

Nurglitch... The size of the base is only relevant to rules in that it be greater than a certain value, specifically that of the GW base supplied with the model. That's all. The rules do not refer to specific base sizes or shapes, just bigger than what comes in the box or blister.

For instance, consider the Terminator. The last box I bought had both the small 24cm bases and the larger bases. Apparently both are fine. However, that only defines the lower limit. I can put a termi on a monsterous creature base. I can put it on a bike base (by your reasoning.)

So the only thing that keeps me from putting the terminator on say a 4x4" square is the fact that the rules are PRESUMABLY referring only to bases that GW manufactures, based on the idea the base must be bigger than what is in the box.

So, by extension, if I model a scenic base on my carnifex, and the edges of the terrain go over the edge of the base, is that now illegal?

If I model a very top heavy daemon prince, must I shy from putting him on a slightly larger base to provide stability?

All despite the fact that it never once mentions "You must use a GW manufactured base."

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Blackmoor, a 40k base can legally be of unlimited biggitude.

Thus the so-called "Jeff Reynolds" rule from the US GT a few years back. He had a Chaos army where his cultists were on 40mm bases (purely for decorative reasons, of course!) whie his HtH daemons were on 25mm bases (for some reason the "decorative reasons" didn't apply to the units that could profit from small bases). I played him at a warm-up RTT and it was annoying as heck. A unit of 20 Cultists blocked LOS to half the table and it was impossible to get more than one or two models with a blast (or even flamer) template.

The year after Mr Reynolds took that army to the GT they put in one of a very few "named" rules into the packet to prevent that sort of thing from happening again...

Vale,

JohnS

Phoenix wrote:So it has come to my attention that there are models that can’t be hit by blast weapons because they are too large. Seems kind of odd to me but let me run this past everyone and see what you guys think.

So in the blast rules, it says something to the effect of ‘Models that have their bases fully under the blast template are hit automatically while those that are partially under the template are hit on a 4+’. So what happens when the primary target of the template has a base that is larger than the template (bikes, monstrous creatures, and the like)? It would seem that the RAW would state that these models could only ever be partialed. Is this just yet another odd rule inconsistency or is there something I’m missing?

Because this topic has become so askew and i am un-aware if the origional poster has a clear answer so i shall answer it now. IF you have a model modeled on a base it did not come with, and its now larger than said blast template, said model can now only ever be hit on a 4+. Despite the opinions others may have. And despite the opinions people may have RAW does not say use only GW products for bases.

And besides GW does make a model assembled out of box that has this problem anyway, without any changes... it is the space marine attack bike. It ends up being 3 cav bases in size.

It's actually good that it doesn't matter now. I haven't seen anyone playing SM mounted on trash can lids lately. I also haven't seen too many blast markers either.

My viewpoint on this whole silly argument is as follows:

Is the model in question on a GW produced base of appropriate shape?

Answer is:

yes=keep playing with model

no=get model off of table

So you wouldn't play with people like Mannahnin with their GF9 oval bases for bikes? How about the lozenge-shaped cavalry base + two halves of a round base bike solution?

Depends on whether the person is just power-gaming or if it is for artistic purposes. Power gamers can go away. I've played with one and we don't play wargames like this anymore despite still being friends. I tried to explain it once but he thought I wasn't trying hard enough to min/max what I was playing. I try to play a balanced sometimes themed army with a little bit of everything for fun.



But my basic belief on the topic is that the model comes with a base. Just put it on the base. Play. End of all arguments.

If it comes with multiple bases(example given earlier was new terminators coming with 25mm and 40mm bases) go to local GW store and ask. Barring that, agree upon it with your fellow gamers you play with regularly. They are the ones who have to worry about it.

I haven't seen the GF9 bases but I tend toward 'No' without seeing them. And if you mean the 40mm square base with 2 halves of a 40mm round on either end. Then no is the answer again. Maybe a cav base with two halves of a 25mm base on either end. At least then the bike would fit on the base end to end.

wilsmire gets it. Even if a model doesn't fit entirely under a Blast Template, it's hit when its unit is hit and that marker is centered over it. That's the rules.

What's not the rules, but just one of those facts of life, is that there aren't any Warhammer 40k bases that won't fit completely under a Blast template.

Either way, it's not a problem.

*shrug*

Huh? The centered bit only applies to Vehicles. Not to models with bases. Which may be as large as the player desires.

Nope. It applies to any model under the hole in the marker after a successful to hit roll with a Blast weapon.

Edit: Double post

Nurglitch wrote:Nope. It applies to any model under the hole in the marker after a successful to hit roll with a Blast weapon.

A rule in the Vehicle section, that refers specifically to Vehicles, applies to any model... why, exactly?

The regular rules for Blasts require the model to be fully covered. The center hole does nothing more than determine the placement of the blast marker.

I liked T-C's argument about identical dice, and biggetude of bases.

So does this mean that I can't use my Dakka dice against someone because they are not official GW products? What if we both agree to use non-official GW products before the game starts? Then my opponent could use his GF9 movement trays for his demons on round bases right? If i put a blast marker over a unit of ranked demons on round bases on a GF9 movement tray, would they all be hit on a 4+, since the blast marker doesn't cover the whole tray?

Supposed we made that aggreement, and we both bring warjacks and warcasters, and warbeasts and warlocks? Would we ever have this argument again?

Nurglitch wrote:wilsmire gets it. Even if a model doesn't fit entirely under a Blast Template, it's hit when its unit is hit and that marker is centered over it. That's the rules.

What's not the rules, but just one of those facts of life, is that there aren't any Warhammer 40k bases that won't fit completely under a Blast template.

Either way, it's not a problem.

*shrug*

Yes they do i already mentioned it... the space marine attack bike, only comes with cav bases, and needs 3 to be properly based. And when this is finished its 3 cav bases or 1 large SQUARE monster base. Which is larger than the small blast template.

Nurglitch wrote:Nope. It applies to any model under the hole in the marker after a successful to hit roll with a Blast weapon.

I think I get where Nurglitch is coming from. When you follow the rules for shooting it is: Pick a Target, Roll to hit, Roll to wound, etc.

If I fire a frag missile, I roll to hit. If I hit with the d6 roll, then its a hit on the target model. Period. Heck, when I fire a frag or any blast weapon at a single model, regardless of size, I never even bother to place the template. Its a single hit on the single model I "hit" with the weapon when I rolled the d6.

I only use the template to see what "other" models are hit by the blast. I've never had an issue in any RTT, GT, or any other type of T

Cruentus, that would be a great rule change, but that ain't what the BBB says...

Due to overwhelming use of NON GW bases for this game in many areas I have played in, I play it in the way that nerdliche is so adamantly defending.

But thats not what the rules say.

I wonder if GW will go so far as to ban non gw bases in 5h ed. It would be stupid, but I wouldn't be surprised either.

Rulebook:Special Weapon Characteristics:Blast Weapons wrote:When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected.

Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically.

So, yeah, apparently the rules do say that you roll to hit as normal. That means once if you roll at least the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit that shot hits. If this hit is scored, then the unit has been hit at least once. Additional hits can be scored if additional models have their bases covered by, or partially covered by, the blast marker.

That means once if you roll at least the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit that shot hits. If this hit is scored, then the unit has been hit at least once.

Please show how you derived this.

As usual, Nurglitch is incorrect by any strict reading of the rules.

If the BS roll is passed, you place a template. Then you resolve to template to determine which models (if any) are hit.

At no point does the rule say that any *model* is actually hit.

I don't actually get what the argument is about here.

If your base is not 100% covered by the blast marker, you are only hit on a partial.

Unless you are a vehicle, which has clearly separate rules.

Whilst this is not 110% explicitly stated in the BGB, I direct your attention to the Apocalypse rulebook, where on P91 - shooting at monstrous creatures - it states that (emphasis mine):

"If a gargantuan creature is hit by a weapon that uses a blast marker, the normal rules for determining if the creature is hit by the marker are not used (as the marker may be smaller than the creature's base, and so it could never score a direct hit)."

The rules are clear; base not covered 100%? Sorry, its a partial. And please, no-one tell me about how this isn't an answer; its a GW supplement, quoting how their own rules work, and how they are changed for apocalypse. So normally, only partials.

NR

tegeus-Cromis:

On page 30, as quoted, we are enjoined by the Blast Weapon rules to roll to hit as normal. The normal way of rolling to hit is detailed on page 22. The normal to hit rules on page 22 say that:

"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot...The dice score needed to hit will depend on how accurate the firers are (as shown by their Ballistic Skill characteristic or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit."

So if you roll to hit as normal with a blast weapon, and normally successfully rolling to hit means that you've scored a hit, then that means that the firing unit has hit its target with the blast weapon.

So rolling at least 3+ for a BS4 model armed with a blast weapon is enough to say that its target unit has been hit by that blast weapon. Now the question becomes: Has the unit been hit in the normal way, or are we dealing with a situation in which there are two senses of the term "hit" where there's the hitting the unit, and then hitting the models in the unit under the blast marker?

Well, as quoted, upon a hit being scored you place the hole of the blast marker over one model in the unit. You do this to see how many models are affected. By 'affected' the rules explicated themselves to mean 'hits', very definitely in the second sense of being under a template and not hit as normal. The question is, therefore, are these affected models hit in addition to the model under the template's hole that was hit in the normal manner, or is it the case that not model in the unit was hit when the attacking player rolled to hit in the normal manner and hits are actually determined by the relation between the blast marker and the models in the unit?

Clearly it is the former, because we are rolling to hit as normal, not simply rolling to hit to place a marker. There is the one model that is hit in the normal way, and there are a number of models that are also hit because they happened to be either completely or partially covered by the marker when it was placed over a unit, and thus a model, it had just hit.

uh...

"roll to hit as normal" under blast weapons means, and only means, you roll to hit as normal.

Meaning, you roll a die, and compare to a ballistic skill chart to see if you hit.

Everything after that is different, as specified in the blast weapons section (if a hit is scored take the blast marker...)

All it says is "roll to hit as normal". Normal refers to how you roll to hit - vs the ballistic skill. In no way does it refer to the results of what you roll. That is what is being covered by the special blast weapons rule.

This couldn't be simpler or more straightforward. Yes, I know, I am just feeding the troll, but seriously there is no reason to think that anything other than the ROLL is normal, not the results of the roll.

I never quite viewed it that way, Nurglitch. I find myself agreeing with your interpretation though, after reading through it twice.

Nurglitch, I'd like to hear your response to those who have brought up the fact that the new biker bases exceed the diameter of a small blast template, if it is at all different than the point you just previously made.

@ Nurglitch:

I believe you are incorrect. By your reasoning, you would end up "hitting" more models then were under the template. Lets say for example a marine shoots a frag missile at some guardsmen. He rolls to hit and gets a 5, which hits. So now (by your logic) he has a hit that will allow him a to wound roll later. The the template is placed. For simplicity, lets say it completely covers 2 guardsmen, who by the rules, are hit automaticaly. Now this frag missile has 3 hits and needs to make 3 to wound rolls.

This is obviously not the way the rules work.

The initial to hit roll is to determin if you get to place a blast template or not. The placement and the rolls for partials determine if any models are hit and "to wound" rolls need to be made against them.

Once upon a 3rd edition, I recall a FAQ that told us to determine who was hit by the model--with things like bikes, you basically see if the rider is covered, rather than the entire bike.

I realize it's not relevant to the discussion in that it's from the old edition and GW never cleaned up the language (in fact, I think it's the same) between editions.

Running it that way is a more reasonable way, though not technically RAW (but then, RAW allows you to create a base bigger than the templates, which creates a situation where the template only partially covers the model's base, if not the model).

How do folks treat really big monsters--biotitans & greater daemons from Forge World--with oversized bases? It seems silly to say that because the blast doesn't fully cover the creature hit, that it might have missed on a 4+

It seems pretty obvious that the combination of rules makes for some silly situations (mostly stemming from the unlimited base size issue).

@Geddinight

I agree...it is extremely dumb to shoot a blast at something, hit it, and then have to roll a 4+ because you only partially hit it because it's base is too big. Extremely dumb. I just think its what the rules say happens.

Wow and to think you guys ran four pages of rant over this topic


Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save or die. Use of blast is to catch other things as well as your target. If somebody wants to agrue out the waszoo because of some wording then smack them with the dreadsock! If they are still moving, smack them again a few more time and get a judge. After which when they wake up, tell them they lost and need to move to the next table. Inform the judge of your bloody victory and move on!

Tarval wrote:Wow and to think you guys ran four pages of rant over this topic


Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save or die. Use of blast is to catch other things as well as your target. If somebody wants to agrue out the waszoo because of some wording then smack them with the dreadsock! If they are still moving, smack them again a few more time and get a judge. After which when they wake up, tell them they lost and need to move to the next table. Inform the judge of your bloody victory and move on!

Except it doesn't quite work that way... it should but it doesn't. RAW is infavor with needing to roll partials on larger models. Logically this does not make since, however there is no room for logic in the grim darkness of the far future.

So, whats the point of rolling to hit if you have partials? If you fail the partial then you fail to hit but you already rolled to hit and you hit your target.

Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save or die. KISS.....

Instead of the dreadsock will get the Rulebooksock, though its going to look a little funny

If you think about, you could put standard guards men on MC bases like the poster is talking about and never again have to worry about frag. then again do you really want to start this type of game play or just accept the fact that you rolled to hit and you hit your target. Now are there any partials in the area?

conscript would just own the boards....We could all play like this but do you really want to go down this path? Go out and buy a 50 pack of CD and then put one conscript on each disk. Oh you flamed my conscripts and it looks like you got um three total guys touched.

You shoot a frag missle and get a partial on a conscript, oh the iron-----------------------E.

The problem with the Conscript example is having to actually model the stupid things.

As i have already stated this is a minatures wargame, logic HAS NO PLACE HERE!!! From a pure RAW standpoint (which i don't agree with i might add), if you were to shoot a plazma cannon at a space marine attack bike then this would happen: first you roll to see if you can place the template AT ALL, then any modles that are 100% under the template are automatically hit, Then any modles not 100% under the template are hit on a 4+ (those are the rules for blast weapons). So in the case of the attack bike, if a space marine was to shoot a plazma cannon at it the rolles would go as follows. 3+ to place template, then a 4+ to hit any modles not 100% under the template (sadly this does include the model the template was centered on) then a 2+ to wound. Yes i agree its dumb, however thats RAW for you.

The only thing I can say is that if somebody wanted to pull this the next time I went to a tourny that allowed it all my conscripts would be on CD bases. I wounder how the judge would rule it then, though raw is raw and I total understand.

I still dont see the roll to place in the book as it is a roll to hit correct me if I am wrong with a page please?

thanks...

It does not say "roll to place" instead of "roll to hit" anywhere.

The issue is that under the normal roll to hit rules, you "roll to hit" and then if you succeed it doesn't say what happens. You just move on to "roll to wound".

In the "Blast Weapons" section, it specifically says what happens after you "roll to hit" - you place the blast template. This is in place of just going straight to "roll to wound" and determines how many (if any) people are hit.

There is no reason that I can see to assume you get one hit automatically. You are just using the blast weapons rules to determine how many hits you get (0, 10, 5,000, whatever) instead of just moving straight on to roll to wound.

The contention, then, is whether or not "roll to hit as normal" means "roll to hit as normal and then also take the normal results of rolling to hit (one hit), PLUS this other stuff about blast templates" or if it means "roll, see if you hit, and if you do determine hits in this special way instead of just automatically getting 1 and moving on"

To me, the wording of the "blast weapons" section makes it obvious that the intention is for the placing of the blast template to replace the normal "you get one hit" assumption. It reads, on page 30:

"If a hit is scored take the Blast Marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected"

You roll to hit - you score a hit based on your ballistic skill. That normally results in "you got a hit! move on!". For Blasts, it does not - instead you follow the placement rules".

I can understand someone arguing that "roll to hit as normal" means "take all the normal results of rolling to hit" but if you insisted it worked that way you would have to give yourself one hit automatically, and then additional hits based on the blast template, as Phoenix pointed out.

Exactly if you got 1 auto hit from the roll to hit "If a hit is scored take the Blast Marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected" would mean if there are 2 models 100% under the template you get 3 chances to would (1 from the initial roll to hit, and 2 for being under the template) the issue is that "If a hit is scored take the Blast Marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected" means your roll to hit was to see if you are allowed to place the blast marker. Thats RAW. It doesn't make since but thats it from a 100% RAW POV.

Phoenix:

I'm not sure how I'm incorrect. It seems that you believe that my opinion is correct.

Now, what is my opinion? I know I'm not good at writing and communicate in a particularly obtuse and circumspect dialect, but I thought that it was clear what my reasoning was. By my reasoning one cannot hit more models than can end up fully or partially covered by the blast marker.

Take your example of the Marine firing a Frag Missile at a unit of Guardsmen. You roll to hit and get a 5 - the unit of Guardsmen is hit. By "my logic", or at least that silly little piece of reasoning I'm obviously incapable of communicating, the unit has been hit at least once. The marker is placed over a model and additional hits are worked out depending on whether models are completely covered by the marker or partially covered by the marker. Let's say that it completely covers two Guardsmen, including the one whose base is under the hole of the marker. The Frag Missile has caused two hits in total, the one hit by the to hit roll, and the additional one completely covered by the marker.

This is obviously the way that the rules work, as I showed earlier in the thread by demonstrating how the "rolling to hit as normal", that hits caused by rolling to hit are...wait for it...hits!

Actually, hold on, saying that something is obvious assumes that anyone should be able to see this, and since it's the point of discussion saying that this is obvious is incredibly stupid, question-begging, and a piss-poor way to carry on a conversation.

So let me just say that I demonstrated how the rules work earlier in the thread, and your counter-example failed to invalidate that demonstration because your counter-example failed to accurately my reasoning.

Moreover, in addition to your counter-argument failing to accurately address my argument, your counter-argument also failed to demonstrate how you think the rules should work. Saying that "This is obviously not the way the rules work" is pointless when I have made an argument to the effect that yes, the rules work exactly as I argue them to.

The roll to hit, as normal, determines a hit. I've shown that. Having secured a hit, a player places the blast marker and may secure additional hits. I've shown that as well. All hits require to wound rolls for them - but that's only relevant to the fact that, normally, one rolls to wound for any successful roll to hit.

Sorry Nurglitch, but you're still wrong.

When the SM firing Frag rolls a "5", he scores a "hit" with a Blast marker.

From a semantics standpoint, the "unit" may be "hit", but NO models are hit. That is where you are getting things completely wrong.

Models within the unit are not actually hit until the Blast marker is physically placed and then evaluated for coverage of full and partials.

Now granted that GW probably should have re-worded things to make them clearer to you, but the text is very clear or you get the kind of stupidity of 2 hits scored against a single model in dispersed formation.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you.

Thank the Lords of Terra that blast markers will automatically hit all models partially and fully touched. 2 months and this becomes moot.

Only thing I was going to add was that if your to big then you have absorbed all of the blast. Therefore its a hit because your have taken all of what could be put out. The word partial was made up for a reason and that reasoning is not being used correctly in this topic. If anything the center hole is telling you that you have hit your target, now did you get any partials in that. Granted all this will be mute in just a few months, oh well...

Geddonnit-Thank the Lords of Terra that blast markers will automatically hit all models partially and fully touched. 2 months and this becomes moot.

Bet this tread is still around though..

JohnHwangDD: Nope, both I and my opinion are correct in this matter.

If I may draw your attention to the fact that the blast marker determines the number of additional hits, not the models that are hit. Models are not hit by the Warhammer 40k rules (4th edition), units are hit. Models may be removed as casualties, but units are hit, wounded, and take saving throws. Hence there is never a problem of a single model scoring two hits on its parent unit when that unit is attacked with a blast weapon.

What I don't understand is how you honestly imagine I'm suggesting anything that would allow a model under the template to be hit twice, or anything other than a strict reading of the rules as stated in the text.

After all, do not the rules state that hits are caused automatically for models completely under the marker, and on a 4+ for models partially under the marker? Given that there is a HOLE in the middle of the marker, and that this hole must be placed over a model in the unit, it would follow that at least one model under the marker is not automatically hit by the blast marker. This model is not completely covered by the marker, and it would be stupid to suppose that they are partially covered.

The fact is that believing that hits are either caused by being completely covered by a blast maker or partially covered by a blast marker is a false dichotomy. The hits caused by blast markers do not exhaust the number of hits caused by an attack with a blast weapon - there is the hit caused, AS NORMAL, by the roll to hit.

The amusing thing about all of this is that, if rumours are true, GW is making it clear for the crowd that believes that some models can only count for partial hits by making blast markers behave like templates. No doubt they are doing so precisely because of the sort of rules twisting that some people are doing in this thread, whereby some absurd conclusion about the rules is pulled out the collective rear ends of a few...creative...rules lawyers.

ok you seem to be getting far too riled up about this. Wishing it to be does not make it so. most likely GW intedned blast markers to be used for additional hits. However this is not how they wrote the rules. Blast weapons do not function under normal rules. This is why they have their own section. Nurglitch the general concensus here in this thread is that you are technically wrong.

Consensus has nothing to do with truth. The name of that fallacy is "argumentum ad populum".

A valid and well-cited counter-argument to my reading, on the other hand, has yet to be posted.

Feel free to post one because if I'm wrong I'd appreciate being convinced of it.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Nope, both I and my opinion are correct in this matter.

If I may draw your attention to the fact that the blast marker determines the number of additional hits, not the models that are hit.

After all, do not the rules state that hits are caused automatically for models completely under the marker, and on a 4+ for models partially under the marker?

there is the hit caused, AS NORMAL, by the roll to hit.

Nope, you're still wrong.

Nowhere in the Blast rule does it say anything about additional hits.

It says to place a Blast marker and then to determine hits depending on whether the base is fully covered or only partially covered.

Nowhere does it state anything about the model under the whole automatically being hit.

There is NO hit caused "as normal", because the "as normal" only applies to the *rolling* of the die roll - i.e. re-rolls.

That leads me to the conclusion that either you have a completely different rulebook from the rest of us, or you don't know what you're talking about.

The Blast mechanic replaces the standard "unit being hit" with the Marker. It's really not a difficult concept. Otherwise the rule would say something like "the model under the hole is automatically hit, and in additionon, other models are hit if their bases are completely under the marker / 4+ if there bases are partially under the marker."

But that isn't what the rule says.

It says to place a marker and then determine what, if anything, is hit.

Please keep in mind that the radius of marker from the hole is only 1.5", and there is NO REQUIREMENT that the Blast be CENTERED over the enemy model. This allows the Blast to be placed on the edge of a 60mm round base, to overlap several 25mm round bases. This might give the opportunity to score several partials. For example, Guardians hiding behind an Avatar.

Just read, understand, and follow the rules. It's not that difficult.

Correction, JohnHwangDD, the entire Blast Weapon rules are about causing additional hits. You're mistaking mention of the term "additional" with the actual structure of the rules expressed by the text. An understandable mistake if one supposes that each rule in the book corresponds to a single term, but still a mistake if one wishes to read the rules correct. Let's look at those rules, shall we?

Blast Weapons, p.30:
"When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected."

The rule says to roll to hit as normal. That indicates that we are using the basic procedure used to determine hits. That can be found on page 22. The rule also says that in the advent of scoring a hit, the Blast marker is placed so its hole is over one model in the target unit to determine a number of hits.

Roll To Hit, p.22:
"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot. Normally troopers will only get to fire one shot each. However, some creatures or weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later. The dice score need to hit will depend on how accurate the firers are (as shown by their Ballistic Skill characteristic or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit."

The rule says that if you roll the threshold number on the chart below, you have scored a hit on a unit (targets are defined as units on page 18). So normally if you successfully roll to hit, you have at least one hit.

Blast Weapons, p.30:
"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."

The Blast Weapons rules further say that models partially covered by the maker count as hits on a 4+, while models completely covered automatically count as hits. Now since the hits caused by a weapon are inclusive, such that the role to hit is in addition to the hits caused by the marker rather than instead, it follows that if a single model unit is hit by a blast weapon that it will ordinarily take one hit at most, rather than taking one hit from the to hit roll and one hit from being partially covered by the template (since the hole ensures it is only partially covered).

Now I've explained how the Blast Weapon rules state that the blast marker is used to determine additional hits: You get one hit from successfully rolling to hit, because otherwise when the blast marker is placed at least one model, the model under the hole in the middle of the marker, is only ever partially hit regardless of the size of its base.

The model under the hole is not automatically hit, and I've gone to pains to explain that. I will reiterate: Models are not hit. Models are used to determine the number of hits on the unit caused by a blast marker. Since there is one initial hit, and each model completely or partially covered by the blast marker adds another hit, a unit hit by a blast weapon always suffers at least one hit, and may suffer more if the blast marker covers more than one model.

Your inability to follow my argument does not lead me to make spurious and unsupported conclusions about the nature of your copy of the rules, or the epistemology basis of your claims. After all, I have quoted the relevant text, shown what rules it states, and posted my work for you to check, what you do with it is your business. I can only try to help you insofar as you want to know the truth, rather than trying to 'win' some argument on the intarwebz.

I must admit though, it's pretty funny to read someone telling me to read the rules (as if I hadn't quoted them earlier in the thread and shown how to read them), understand (i.e.: agree with them about something I have good reason to disagree with), and follow the rules (rather tangential to what the rules actually are, but them's the breaks I suppose). It's particularly funny because I'm wondering why you don't just read the rules, understand them, and stop playing silly buggers with them!

Funny old world eh?

@Nurglitch: Normal rules are always overridden by special rules.
Blast Weapons, p.30:
"When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected."

The "roll to hit as normal" section of that statement specifically refers to:

Roll To Hit, p.22:
"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot... The dice score need to hit will depend on how accurate the firers are (as shown by their Ballistic Skill characteristic or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit."

Meaning roll to hit to check if you are allowed to place said template.

The normal 1 hit 1 wound rule is replaced by, Blast Weapons, p.30:
"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."

Logically it makes no sense if a blast template's center is on a model but it is not hit. However as i have said earlier Logic has no place in the grim darkness of the far future, where there is onlywar.

For some unforseeable reason you seem dead set on that you still get a too wound roll on the centered model. However this is not supported by written rules in the rulebook.

Your arguement of:
"The model under the hole is not automatically hit, and I've gone to pains to explain that. I will reiterate: Models are not hit. Models are used to determine the number of hits on the unit caused by a blast marker. Since there is one initial hit, and each model completely or partially covered by the blast marker adds another hit, a unit hit by a blast weapon always suffers at least one hit, and may suffer more if the blast marker covers more than one model."

Is nullified bt the rules for blast weapons: Blast Weapons, p.30:
"When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected."

"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."

The key section is "see how many models are affected" which seems to be confusing you. If it was written: "to see how many models are also affected." If it was written that way or wording similar to it i would agree. However its not.

And your opinion of the matter is a rather liberal interpertation of the rules. And just like in any matter, when a liberal is proved wrong they deny the facts placed before them.

Red_Lives: I agree, specific rules over-ride more general rules that they contradict.

However, in the case of Blast Weapons, the specific rules of Blast Weapons do not contradict the more general To Hit Roll rules. In fact, the specific rule explicitly tells us to follow the normal general To Hit Roll rules as they cover rolling to hit as normal.

Now, about logic, logic is very relevant where rules and structures composed of rules are concerned. Moreover the particular logic one might apply, such as classical, intuitionistic, many-valued, paraconsistent, modal, etc is important as different logics will license different inferences.

Logically, meaning following classically from the premises given in the rules, the model under the hole of the marker is only ever partially covered by that marker. That is, of course, if we only follow the logic of the rules stated by the text of the Blast Weapons. Where we add the structures denoted by the text of the To Hit Roll rules, then logically the model under the hole of the marker counts as the first hit from the roll to hit, and all other models are additional hits to that.

You see, the context of the phrase "see how many models are affected" is a context in which at least one hit has already been caused, and one model, the model under the hole of the marker, has been distinguished from the models causing hits in combination with that marker. That model is distinguished from the models causing hits via the marker by the rule stated by the text that:

"If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected."

So I'm sorry, but I'm not confused about what the rules mean. I'm just pointing out that the scope of "see how many models are affected" has been fixed by the context of that phrase to mean the same thing as "to see how many models are also affected".

Nice snipe about liberals, by the way. It really made your argument convincing, and was relevant to the matter of what the rules actually say.

Nurglitch wrote:

You see, the context of the phrase "see how many models are affected" is a context in which at least one hit has already been caused, and one model, the model under the hole of the marker, ....

No, Red is spot on in his analysis. The blast rules tell you who is affected by the hits, an exception to the implied, default application of 1 hit affects 1 model.

As has been said already:
"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically." The implication of your analysis is that if a blast marker is placed over and wholly covers just one model, by your application that would be 1 hit, and following the quoted rule that would be another hit, so 2 hits on one model? Of course not. It's 1 hit, because the blast rules tell us who is affected.

deadlygopher: No, the implication of my analysis is that if a single model unit is hit, then only one hit is caused, the hit caused by the successful to hit roll. There are no other models in the unit to cause additional hits.

But if you say that 1 hit is caused when the firer makes a successful roll against his ballistic skill, then why would you ignore this rule? This would still have efficacy, would it not? And if it does, it would cause another hit.

"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."

I'll assume "this rule" means the quoted text in your message.

First I'll point out that I'm not ignoring the rule about how many hits are determined by the blast marker. I'm applying it within the context of the rules, and the context of the rules does not allow the hit caused by the roll to hit get doubled up by the hits caused by the placement of the blast marker. Hence I'm trying to explain why the context to that sentence makes those hit an addition to the hit caused by a successful roll to hit.

The context, without repeating the text and its exegesis, is that the player places the blast marker after a successful roll to hit, when one hit has already been scored. Now the marker has a hole in the middle that must be placed over a model in the unit. Either that model always counts as partially covered, or it is the initial hit. The text says that it is the initial hit, hence all the other models completely or partially covered by the template are the referent models of the sentence you quote.

I find this argument entertaining from you, Nurglitch.

In your previous post you said the context implies the rule should be read as "to see how many models are also affected".

But see, the rule doesn't say "also affected," it says "to see how many models are affected." This is not an ambiguous wording, nor is it unclear or susceptible to varying interpretation. We needn't go to the far corners of the BGB to see what it means, because we've got some good ol' fashioned plain English here. Quite simply, this blast rule tells us how to translate a successful ballistic skill roll into affecting hits.

You're attempt to avoid what is obvious to everyone else - that the blast rules are a special exception to the normal application of 1 hit affects 1 model - is uncomfortably strained. You need to justify your position by saying the rules don't say what they say, but in fact include words that aren't there. How far hath the defender of RAW fallen!

I'm glad you're entertained. It shows your quality.

In my previous post I said the context determines that the text "to see how many models are affected" means the same thing as "to see how many models are also affected".

Indeed, the text of the rule lacks the term "also". I agree that the wording is not ambiguous, as the context fixes the meaning and that this meaning is not equivocal or open to competing interpretations.

However, I must disagree with your assertion that taking the text stating the rules out of context is a truth-preserving method of reading the rules. Quite simply the Blast Weapon rules tell us how to place the blast marker and determine the number of additional hits under the normal rules regarding rolling to hit.

I've not avoided what is obvious to everyone else, I've patiently tried to explain that the 'obvious' is making people overlook the evidence.

Quite why you're talking about RAW I don't know. I've never defended that naive theory of meaning and attacked it quite often. If anything your insistence on taking text out of context to determine its meaning is RAW at its worst.

Now of course I'm not not saying that the rules don't say what they say: I'm saying, as ever and always, that the rules are stated by the text according to basic semantic conventions of sense, reference, use, and context. I'm certainly not arguing that the rules include words that aren't there.

I am pointing out that people are misreading the rules by taking them out of their context and thus decoding them improperly.

The context does show the answer. There are rules on hitting, and then there are special circumstance rules concerning blast weapons. Both can be read together, on their face, without having to insert words or strain for an interpretation. The majority of this thread have pointed that out repeatedly.

You're so focused on your own analysis that you're missing your fallacy. You see the 'to hit' rules, which say a hit is caused, so you've had to change the meaning of the blast rules to avoid generating multiple hits on a single model. But it's just as easy to change the to hit rules, and read in context that a sucessful ballistic roll only affects a model if there isn't a special circumstance exception, such as a blast. There's nothing logically necessary about your argument, because mine is just an tenable.

We are used to rules overriding each other, that's a well-known interpretive maxim in 40k. What's not a maxim is that the rules might mean something other than what they plainly say. Applying the accepted maxim, the to hit rule and the blast rule can work in tandem, without changing their wording, when we read the latter as an exception. That's the correct interpretation.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm glad you're entertained. It shows your quality.

I am pointing out that people are misreading the rules by taking them out of their context and thus decoding them improperly.

Oh, the irony...

Dude, I can't believe you're telling me (above) that the rules say something other than what they say. You keep needing to insert the words "also" and "additional" to make the rules say what you want them to say. The rest of us don't ever need to do that.

When a plain reading of the rules concludes one thing, and doesn't require additional words to be inserted, one may reasonably assume that the plain reading is correct.

For you to be asinine about insisting that the rules don't do what they say, and that they need to be specially interpreted to add extra language, demonstrates the weakness of your position.

For this "discussion" to continue, we're reaching a point at which we have to go back to the very basic concept of special rules. I now question whether you even understand how GW uses special rules to override basic rules.

Nurglitch wrote:Correction, JohnHwangDD, the entire Blast Weapon rules are about causing additional hits.

Really? That's not what the actual rules say.

You're mistaking mention of the term "additional" with the actual structure of the rules expressed by the text.

Now you're saying that the structure of the rules implies something that isn't actually stated? :S

An understandable mistake if one supposes that each rule in the book corresponds to a single term, but still a mistake if one wishes to read the rules correct.

Now, I'm wondering if you get the rules so wrong that you roll to-wound when you hit a Vehicle.

Because the AP rules are a replacement effect for the to-wound in the same way that the Blast rules are a replacement effect for the to-hit.

Let's look at those rules, shall we?

OK, let's go through it, this should be amusing.

Blast Weapons, p.30:
"When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected."

The rule says to roll to hit as normal. That indicates that we are using the basic procedure used to determine hits. That can be found on page 22. The rule also says that in the advent of scoring a hit, the Blast marker is placed so its hole is over one model in the target unit to determine a number of hits.

So far, so good.

"roll to hit" (as normal) has specific rule to define it:

Roll To Hit, p.22:
"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot. Normally troopers will only get to fire one shot each. However, some creatures or weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later. The dice score need to hit will depend on how accurate the firers are (as shown by their Ballistic Skill characteristic or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit."

The rule says that if you roll the threshold number on the chart below, you have scored a hit on a unit (targets are defined as units on page 18). So normally if you successfully roll to hit, you have at least one hit.

And *this* is where you go horribly wrong.

A plain reading of the above rule is that it describes a *success* mechanic. Did the "roll to hit" say that the unit or model was actually hit (affected)? No, it didn't. All we've done to this point is determine a number of successes.

So going back up to the first part, now, you're allowed to place a marker. Let's go on...

Blast Weapons, p.30:
"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."

The Blast Weapons rules further say that models partially covered by the maker count as hits on a 4+, while models completely covered automatically count as hits. Now since the hits caused by a weapon are inclusive, such that the role to hit is in addition to the hits caused by the marker rather than instead, it follows that if a single model unit is hit by a blast weapon that it will ordinarily take one hit at most, rather than taking one hit from the to hit roll and one hit from being partially covered by the template (since the hole ensures it is only partially covered).

Epic Fail. To reach "inclusive" and "in addition", you have inserted an rules clause that is not referenced, namely, the basic procedure for Shooting that converts successes into models (or units) being hit.

However, nowhere does it say to apply the basic shooting successes to-hit = mode hits. Instead, it says to check the marker for full and partial hits. This is a replacement effect for the basic rule.

Now I've explained how the Blast Weapon rules state that the blast marker is used to determine additional hits: You get one hit from successfully rolling to hit, because otherwise when the blast marker is placed at least one model, the model under the hole in the middle of the marker, is only ever partially hit regardless of the size of its base.

No, all you've done is insert a rule that doesn't apply.

It is particularly instructive when we all note that you completely ignore my Frag vs. Avatar / Guardian all-partials example to make a stupid argument that doesn't hold water.

Your inability to follow my argument does not lead me to make spurious and unsupported conclusions about the nature of your copy of the rules, or the epistemology basis of your claims.

Of course not. That is because I am following the rules correctly, and was wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to your "reasoning" (or demonstrated failure therein).

However, as you have confirmed that you have the correct rules, that excuse is now ruled out. It is clear from the rules chain that you are assuming an unreferenced basic rule still applies, when clearly it does not.

I must admit though, it's pretty funny to read someone telling me to read the rules (as if I hadn't quoted them earlier in the thread and shown how to read them), understand (i.e.: agree with them about something I have good reason to disagree with), and follow the rules (rather tangential to what the rules actually are, but them's the breaks I suppose). It's particularly funny because I'm wondering why you don't just read the rules, understand them, and stop playing silly buggers with them!

Funny old world eh?

Indeed. It's especially funny when it's clear that you've gotten it completely wrong.

Well, the only time this is going to come up is when I plasma cannon a MC. Guys just give me a hit and deal with the fact that you just took a direct hit from a blast weapon. Granted your bigger which would mean that I should get some type of bonus to hit you but the fact stands that you have taken all of the blast. In all respects just get over the fact that im to big and deal with the fact that str 7 is going to wound instead of trying to find out if its a partial. There is no partial on a full which you guys are taking the context of partial and turning it into something else.

What this boils down to is that there are two different ways presented to read the rules... and both sides think they are correct.

What we need, then, is some form of clarification... something else that refers to this issue to clarify what this apparently ambiguous rule actually means.

The funny part is that this clarification was already given earlier in the thread: The Apocalypse book mentions that Blasts against Gargantuan creatures always count as a Hit... and state that this is a change to the normal rules, which would make it impossible to score a full hit because the Blast is smaller than the model's base.

End of problem, right there.

Here's an example of a Frag missile having been fired by a Tactical Marine at an Eldar Avatar on 60mm base being placed such that the hole in the center of the Blast is at the edge of the Avatar base in order to catch 4 Guardians on standard 25mm bases following behind the Avatar:



According to Nurglitch, the Avatar is automatically hit, which is clearly false. The player made a conscious decision to place the 76mm Blast so that it only partially covers the Avatar, in order to try and kill a couple Guardians.

Under a normal reading of the rules, the SM player rolls a partial for the Avatar, and then 4 partials for the Guardians, because no bases are wholly under the template.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Here's an example of a Frag missile having been fired by a Tactical Marine at an Eldar Avatar on 60mm base being placed such that the hole in the center of the Blast is at the edge of the Avatar base in order to catch 4 Guardians on standard 25mm bases following behind the Avatar:



According to Nurglitch, the Avatar is automatically hit, which is clearly false. The player made a conscious decision to place the 76mm Blast so that it only partially covers the Avatar, in order to try and kill a couple Guardians.

Under a normal reading of the rules, the SM player rolls a partial for the Avatar, and then 4 partials for the Guardians, because no bases are wholly under the template.

Exactly because the rules say place center of the template over a model not the center of the template over the CENTER of a model. Hopefully your diagram puts an end to any and all arguements the the center of the template is a normal hit (Which its not). Which is what we who properly understand this rule have been trying to explain.

Uncle.

I give up. You win.

Truly, it is you that are the ones who properly understand this rule.

Please, pardon my dissent, I know not what I did...

If I am not mistaken are we all know talking about a single model? Maybe some of you should read the question again so that your not trying to change the topic.

Tarval wrote:If I am not mistaken are we all know talking about a single model?

No, what we're discussing is the rules for Blast weapons.

Whether the Blast is hitting one model or hitting multiple models, the model the Blast is centred on should be treated the same.

@insaniak:

Good find with the note from apocalypse. While people try to apply apocalypse stuff to the regular game in rules discussions a little too often, this is to me is a great example of someplace where it's exactly right and very useful.

But yeah, as was said many times in this thread, the whole argument is moot in 10 weeks. And we'll have all sorts of new poorly worded rules to argue over.

insaniak

No, what we're discussing is the rules for Blast weapons.

No go back to page one and read up on what the question was, if not just look at the title sir.

We are talking about partial and there are no partial if everything that could hit, hit a single target. You guys keep wording partial so that somebody might have to roll because your to big.

lambadomy wrote:Good find with the note from apocalypse.

While I'd love to take the credit for it, Nightrunner actually pointed it out earlier in the thread...

Tarval wrote:No go back to page one and read up on what the question was, if not just look at the title sir.

...and your point is?

Does the model that the marker is centred on have different rules if other models are also affected by the Blast?

You guys keep wording partial so that somebody might have to roll because your to big.

Er, yes... because that's how it works.

If the Blast marker doesn't cover the model's base, it's a partial. That's what the rules say, and that's what the Apocalypse book confirms.

insaniak
If the Blast marker doesn't cover the model's base, it's a partial.

All of you keep taking the word partial out of context.

Oh well, two more months...

Tarval wrote:All of you keep taking the word partial out of context.

Rulebook, page 30
"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."


Apocalypse, page 91
"If a Gargantuan creature is hit by a weapon that uses a Blast marker, the normal rules for determining if the creature is hit by the marker are not used (as the marker may be smaller than the creature's base, and so could never score a direct hit.)"


So, please, explain how claiming that a model whose base is only partially covered by the marker is not automatically hit is taking things out of context.