Hey guys having an rules debate with another player would be interested in any FAQs or tournament rulings on this. I was using a baneblade to shoot a swarmlord and measured the range from the closest track on the tank. This puts all the flamers in range in my opinion even though some of the weapon mounts are actually more than 8" away. The Banblade is obviously very wide. My opponent was unhappy with this and is claiming that when measuring to the HULL as per the rule the tracks should not count. They are trying to say I should measure to the central chassis area of the baneblade which is an extra inch or 2 away. The debate is important to them because then they could put all the flamers out of range. This seems very incorrect to me but the rule book really doesn't define hull or give an example in the pictures so it's just my opinion vs theirs.

From the Warhammer 40,000 Main Rulebook FAQ:

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?

A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of the model. It does not include things such as turrets, sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still doubt, we recommend both players agree about what constitutes the hull of such models before the battle begins.

Yeah we read that, but the debate goes on. So would your interpretation be that the wheels and tracks are part of the main body?

Liger404 wrote:
Yeah we read that, but the debate goes on. So would your interpretation be that the wheels and tracks are part of the main body?

Any propulsion system I would consider as a part of the main body of any vehicle, as without the propulsion system the vehicle does not move.

Dunno if this helps, but here's the definition of "hull".

"The main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings"

Going off this, it would not include the tracks (assuming the tracks of a vehicle would be analogous to the masts of a ship).

In the automotive industry, the body of a vehicle refers to the outer casing, excluding the frame, interior components, and the wheels. I feel like this confirms the prior conclusion. Sorry, mate.

The prior conclusion was actually in my favour as I read it. I would be really surprised if things like wheels aren't included. Because with Xeno vehicles who can say which part is the hull and which parts are engines grave plates ect. Surely there is an accepted standard used in tournaments? This can't be the first time this has come up.

I feel like there *should* be a ruling about it somewhere. For now, it's really ambiguous. I would suggest, in this case, the OP just acquiesce to the opponent, then be sure to clear things up before the match in the future. If, at the very least, just to get the game going again.

I have never seen anyone argue the tracks aren't part of the hull... that seems dumb.

It does seem... unusual. However, the opponent (at the very least) IS able to argue it due to differing definitions and GW failing to specify whether or not the tracks/wheels are part of the hull. I probably wouldn't have argued it myself, but can't fault the guy or gal for using ambiguity and lack of precedence to spare himself some pain.

The problem is if I allow it every vehicle will need to have a discussion of which exact part is the hull and which parts are engines, wheels, tracks, grav plates, crew compartments ect. I play with this person often. I just think that would be a bad way for us to play the game. Right now he is playing Tyranids and I have guard. So it doesn't seem so bad. But what about if he starts playing eldar his other favorite? Which part of an eldar grav tank or tau grav tank is the Hull?

Well, I feel like you have three options here.
1) force your opponent to your point of view.
2) concede to your opponent's point of view.
3) call the game as unresolvable and pack it up.

Right now, we have a lack of clarification. Neither side can claim to be "right", only that their way "makes more sense". If you can't come to an agreement on it, then you've reached an unresolvable point in your game. Assuming you cannot get your opponent to back down, you can only choose to agree with them, or call off the game. At least until we can get a ruling that is more concise.

Liger404 wrote:
The problem is if I allow it every vehicle will need to have a discussion of which exact part is the hull and which parts are engines, wheels, tracks, grav plates, crew compartments ect. I play with this person often. I just think that would be a bad way for us to play the game. Right now he is playing Tyranids and I have guard. So it doesn't seem so bad. But what about if he starts playing eldar his other favorite? Which part of an eldar grav tank or tau grav tank is the Hull?

The normal tanks are pretty easy for the eldar. Its the hull itself including the turret and i would say the exhaust..

It gets tricky with wave serpent fins.. they increase the vehicle's footprint by about 1" almost all the way around.

I always agree this beforehand with whomever im playing and let them decide. Its usefull one way, as you get more range and can deploy your troops further away if you count the fins. But its also easier to target and charge you. I personaly lilke to play the fins as hull because to me its part of the model. If opponent is in doubt i recomend tossing a coin...

Thanks for the replies guys. I was hoping it was more black and white than this but it seems this is not the case.

I know I was sort of playing devil's advocate there, but I DO want to mention that I, personally, think anything that isn't "decoration" would be considered part of the hull. Tracks. Wheels. Wings. Guns. Etc. And I think this situation might be why most of the new Ork vehicles have come with a base now. However, there's no clear RAW answer on whether wheels or tracks count as part of the hull, so we can't really help you on that. All we can do is advise you on what the rules say, what definitions you might find to help you make your case, and hope you can appeal to common sense.

The whole problem with this rule is that it relies on you and your opponent are using the most expansive, reasonable definitions. Unless you are doing so someone is gonna start the “that bit doesn’t count” debate and get salty. Before the battle is the best time to run through vehicles, terrain and anything else with possible ambiguity and decide how you’ll be playing. Otherwise mid-game butthurt happens.

FWIW I’d consider tracks and sponsons part of the main body of a Baneblade, but not the tip of an aerial or the end of a sponson Lascannon.

Tbh, however you play it is fine so long as it’s the same for both players. I.e. he has to add an extra 2” to shooting ranges if you have to subtract 2”. Bet he’ll change his tune if you point that out.

Several things brought up so far appear to be in disagreement with the FAQ on this:

"Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many
vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of
the model. It does not include things such as turrets,
sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is
still doubt, we recommend both players agree about
what constitutes the hull of such models before the
battle begins."

Some significant takeaways include:

I, personally, think anything that isn't "decoration" would be considered part of the hull. Tracks. Wheels. Wings. Guns. Etc.

The turret interestingly does not appear to count

FWIW I’d consider tracks and sponsons part of the main body of a Baneblade

Sponsons interestingly do not appear to count

Its the hull itself including the turret

The turret interestingly does not appear to count

Hull in its Oxford definition: "The main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings."
This is simply the solid 'box' of a craft and would not include tracks as they are just soft linkages running around the wheels, sometimes they are even made of rubber. Wheels themselves would not be part of the 'Hull', been easily replaceable bolt-ons attached to the main body by an axle.

However you could imagine it was translated to tanks in the sense that the hull of a ship is the bit that moves the other stuff around, i.e. the bottom portion.

Aircraft 'Hull' insurances covers the whole plane but aircraft salvage defines 'Hull' as the 'aircraft structure' been the fuselage, wings and tail.

How stuff works uses this definition:
"The hull is the bottom portion of the tank -- the track system and an armored body containing the engine and transmission. The hull's job is to transport the top portion of the tank, the turret, from place to place."

Wiki says:
Hull may refer to:
Chassis of an armored fighting vehicle
Chassis in Wiki means the frame, not the wheels, however you may have a rolling chassis which does include the wheels.

A wiki search of Tank Chassis only shows tanks with wheels and tracks, which may indicate the common understanding is the 'How Stuff Works' definition.

Well worth an FAQ but probably they mean to include the tracks.

The issue with that is, Hull, seems to be the definition of a floating ship (AKA A boat) and as such would have no provision for wheels or tracks.

On a land vehicle the drive system would definitely be considered Hull, as if you destroy that you essentially make the land vehicle useless.

To me chains and wheels of a tank are not part of the hull. The hull is the core of a model, the one part in the middle. Anything that is bolted on (tank : turret, chains, wheels, sponsons, antenna etc.) is not part of the hull. Just like arms and legs are not part of the hull of a walker, like a dreadnought, killa kan, stompa, or even a titan.

 p5freak wrote:
To me chains and wheels of a tank are not part of the hull.

They should be, since anything that moves a land vehicle is an integral part of said vehicle, and as such should be considered hull.

The hull is the core of a model, the one part in the middle. Anything that is bolted on (tank : turret, chains, wheels, sponsons, antenna etc.) is not part of the hull. Just like arms and legs are not part of the hull of a walker, like a dreadnought, killa kan, stompa, or even a titan.

Hull is any essential part of a vehicle...

Arms and legs are absolutely a part of the hull of a walker.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hull is any essential part of a vehicle...

By that logic every part of a vehicle is essential, otherwise it wouldnt be on the vehicle. No one builds vehicles with unessential parts.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Arms and legs are absolutely a part of the hull of a walker.

No, they arent. By that logic the entire walker would be the hull. A hull is only one part (the central one, the inner core) of a vehicle.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Arms and legs are absolutely a part of the hull of a walker.

No, they arent. By that logic the entire walker would be the hull.

And? It's hard for a walker to get around without legs. It's kind of implied with the "walk" part of Walker.

Intuitively I would not consider treads, wheels, legs, etc. part of the hull. They could be ripped off of the vehicle and you would still have a hull, it simply wouldn't go anywhere. For aircraft I would consider wings to be part of the hull of a plane, but not jet engines or the blades of a helicopter. How about the big drill on a termite or hades drill? I would say no.

If everything counts on a tank because “but but the treads are essential bruh like come on man please” then the fins of an eldar wave serpeant are also essential for some reason. We just don’t understand why because Xenos technology. So I would make sure my fins are modeled as far out as they could go to allow me farther shooting ranges. Yay equality! Right guys? Right right?

I think we might see an emergance of vehicle bases to resolve some of the issues. Not sure if the ork ones weve seen are a prelude to whats coming for all or just ork specific but it would kind of make sense.

In regards to walkers I disagree... If my model can only see a walkers leg then surely thats the point I measure to. makes sense as thats probably the thing youd aim for anyway..

Otherwise I cant draw LOS and see the walker as it's s a floating core and its legs dont count??

Arms are a bit trickier so im not sure how I feel about those.

So the spear of my Custodes Jetbike captain is pointed rather down and away, to show him stabbing something below him. In a recent game, I was told that they could measure to this point for charging and shooting, as it was "part of the vehicle".

This thread really helped me. I just learned it's to the vehicle, not things on the vehicle.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So the spear of my Custodes Jetbike captain is pointed rather down and away, to show him stabbing something below him. In a recent game, I was told that they could measure to this point for charging and shooting, as it was "part of the vehicle".

This thread really helped me. I just learned it's to the vehicle, not things on the vehicle.

Jetbikes are not vehicles. Charging doesn't deal with the model whatsoever, only the base. Shooting can draw LOS to the tip of the spear just fine, in both directions.

If I made the call it would be all part of every vehicle counts as hull. Yes even spikes and that jazz. It leaves no room for interpertation wich is the most fair in my oppinion.

Until someone puts a 4 foot wooden dowel on their Castellan and have LOS to every point on the map. Obviously modeling for advantage, but that's kinda the thing with making everything count for LOS and range.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hull is any essential part of a vehicle...

By that logic every part of a vehicle is essential.

No, not every part of the vehicle is essential.

The spikes on top are not essential, the sandbags on top are not essential, the banners are not essential etc...

 flandarz wrote:
Until someone puts a 4 foot wooden dowel on their Castellan and have LOS to every point on the map. Obviously modeling for advantage, but that's kinda the thing with making everything count for LOS and range.

And that makes it easier to shoot. Modelling for Advantage has always existed. Crouching Wraith knights anyone? I remember in the Fish of Fury days swapping crouching T'au Firewarrior legs for the Standing ones + cash.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
Until someone puts a 4 foot wooden dowel on their Castellan and have LOS to every point on the map. Obviously modeling for advantage, but that's kinda the thing with making everything count for LOS and range.

And that makes it easier to shoot. Modelling for Advantage has always existed. Crouching Wraith knights anyone? I remember in the Fish of Fury days swapping crouching T'au Firewarrior legs for the Standing ones + cash.

Honestly I would just laugh if I saw someone did this with their castellan. And it goes both ways as it becomes harder to hide. Same with base sizes, i'm very liberal that people I play with can choose whatever base size they think fits. Most people that mod their models in any way do it because they think it looks cool, not to get easier games.

It feels very much like "but what if" scenario, I'm yet to see any offending abuse of modelling after 15+ years in this hobby.

How many people are able to hide a standard Castellan from LOS anyway? But, yeah, it was an extreme example and I agree that most folks ain't abusing custom modeling. Well, at least no one I know. I assume that, if GW had to put out an FAQ about it, it must have happened sometime or another.

When you are measuring from track vs the hull, isnt it like a 2-3mm difference. If are you getting to that extreme measurements probably fairer to roll off if you can't agree. Really the tanks fault for not getting in range so I would dare say the tank should not fire.

OP said it was a 1-2" difference. Which, honestly, I thought was kinda large, but I dunno if that's the norm for that kinda vehicle or not.

The baneblade has a significant portion of track-covered wheel sticking out at the front and then a bunch of armour covering the rest of the track that arguably isn't part of the main body. It definitely can make a difference of an inch or two depending on how you define things.

I always figured: think of the silhouette. That's the hull - also the hull could also be considered everything, or most everything common between Baneblades, Shadowswords and so on.

The silhouette is not the hull, it's everything.

 p5freak wrote:
The silhouette is not the hull, it's everything.

I was talking about the identification silhouettes - https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjxyta2nvriAhVOvKwKHZrTC7sQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.il2sturmovik.com%2Ftopic%2F29567-identificationrecognition-aircrafts-of-bosbombok%2F&psig=AOvVaw3U2D-LoCF6FiLD1qxb_Bsh&ust=1561194915756239

You don't usually see those with the add-on bits. This would still include the turret, which doesn't count according to the rules, but it gives you a starting point. Which is also why I mentioned all the shared variant components. The Predator, Whirlwind, Vindicator, Razorback and Rhino are all built on the Rhino hull. The superheavies are also all built on the same hull.

And where in rules do I find those silhouettes ? Who decides how these silhouettes look ? What is included and what not ?

GW really never learns...

I've had the discussion about whether deff rollas or trukk rams are hull or not ever since I started playing the game...

The only real solution is either to measure to every part of the model or give all models bases.

What about Defilers? Or Necron Triarch Stalkers?

The only answer that matters is what the two players playing the particular game agree counts for measuring range from on the vehicles they’re using. This is actually the rules, and all the rules that count here.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The only answer that matters is what the two players playing the particular game agree counts for measuring range from on the vehicles they’re using. This is actually the rules, and all the rules that count here.

Exactly. Add this to the pile of rules that are undefined and you may want to check with your opponent before the game. There are plenty of rules questions in 40k where the answer is simply undefined and no amount of discussion and back and forth will change that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So the spear of my Custodes Jetbike captain is pointed rather down and away, to show him stabbing something below him. In a recent game, I was told that they could measure to this point for charging and shooting, as it was "part of the vehicle".

This thread really helped me. I just learned it's to the vehicle, not things on the vehicle.

Jetbikes are not vehicles. Charging doesn't deal with the model whatsoever, only the base. Shooting can draw LOS to the tip of the spear just fine, in both directions.

Well, then how do you measure movement? Because then you measure movement off the base. I move 6", but it your way of thinking I get an "extra" inch of movement for shooting. You move off the base, and you shoot off the base, if it's not a vehicle.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So the spear of my Custodes Jetbike captain is pointed rather down and away, to show him stabbing something below him. In a recent game, I was told that they could measure to this point for charging and shooting, as it was "part of the vehicle".

This thread really helped me. I just learned it's to the vehicle, not things on the vehicle.

Jetbikes are not vehicles. Charging doesn't deal with the model whatsoever, only the base. Shooting can draw LOS to the tip of the spear just fine, in both directions.

Well, then how do you measure movement? Because then you measure movement off the base. I move 6", but it your way of thinking I get an "extra" inch of movement for shooting. You move off the base, and you shoot off the base, if it's not a vehicle.

What are you talking about? You measure range from the base, you measure LOS to the model.

I am confused.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So the spear of my Custodes Jetbike captain is pointed rather down and away, to show him stabbing something below him. In a recent game, I was told that they could measure to this point for charging and shooting, as it was "part of the vehicle".

This thread really helped me. I just learned it's to the vehicle, not things on the vehicle.

Jetbikes are not vehicles. Charging doesn't deal with the model whatsoever, only the base. Shooting can draw LOS to the tip of the spear just fine, in both directions.

Well, then how do you measure movement? Because then you measure movement off the base. I move 6", but it your way of thinking I get an "extra" inch of movement for shooting. You move off the base, and you shoot off the base, if it's not a vehicle.

You measure movement from the base. This is the same as any model that has a base. LOS is determined from any point on the model, as usual, but ranges are measured from the base.

Right, so; my confusion:

Here is my example of modeling for advantage/disadvantage -

Two soldiers are 10" apart. The first to go has a 3" shooting range, and a 6" movement. So, in order to be within range to shoot, he needs to move 7", which he can't do.

So, his spear, which is normally pointed UP on the model, is now lowered and point 2" out in front. So, if he moves his 6", he is still 4" away, but, the tip of the spear is 2" away, meaning he can shoot the other target.

This is obviously wrong, for obvious reasons. I measure my shooting to the model, not to the pointiest bit on them pointing towards me. It's why we don't measure shooting to the tip of the chain sword on a model, which can be sticking out 1" beyond the model. We measure to the central point of the model.

Or at least I do, and so does everyone else I play with. That way I can model my guys in neat poses, and not worry about try hard rules lawyers getting all butthurt when they don't get to dump 12 shots into my Company commander because they can range the tip of his sword.

Yeah, as has been stated if this is a model with a base then unless it has a special rule to the contrary then you measure to the base. So this doesn't matter. Modelling for advantage for such models is about LoS, not range.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right, so; my confusion:

Here is my example of modeling for advantage/disadvantage -

Two soldiers are 10" apart. The first to go has a 3" shooting range, and a 6" movement. So, in order to be within range to shoot, he needs to move 7", which he can't do.

So, his spear, which is normally pointed UP on the model, is now lowered and point 2" out in front. So, if he moves his 6", he is still 4" away, but, the tip of the spear is 2" away, meaning he can shoot the other target.

This is obviously wrong, for obvious reasons. I measure my shooting to the model, not to the pointiest bit on them pointing towards me. It's why we don't measure shooting to the tip of the chain sword on a model, which can be sticking out 1" beyond the model. We measure to the central point of the model.

Or at least I do, and so does everyone else I play with. That way I can model my guys in neat poses, and not worry about try hard rules lawyers getting all butthurt when they don't get to dump 12 shots into my Company commander because they can range the tip of his sword.

I'm confused over your confusion. Does your model have a base? If so all distances are measured to that base. So in your example of the Trooper above, he could have a 2' long spear but it wouldn't affect his range as it would still be measured form the base. The physical shape and dimensions of the model only matter for determining if it can see, not whether it has range.

Not that it matters too mcuh anyway, since the rules are reciprocal and if you can see you can also be seen. The same applies to distance measurements - if you're within a certain distance of the enemy they're also within that distance of you, so even if you did measure from some weird protrusion the enemy would be able to do the same when measureing to your model.

To the OP:
An ITC judge would say 'yes' to the tracks of the Baneblade, rhino, Land Raider, exhaust vents on a D'Fish or HammerHead, an elf ship's pointy tip, a Drukhari shock prow, a Defiler's claw on its leg, etc.

This thread's often cited FAQ about 'sponsons and aerials' don't state tracks, so I think you're good to go.

You might ask, "How do you know this, Casey?" I play with some ITC judges*, (that is, the guy's that write the ITC's code, and judge at the LVO) at their local game store, here in California, USA.

*edit
cuz, there's gonna be ITC judges everywhere, but I'm at ground zero (maybe plus 1) for ITC rulings.

Make a magnetic base for your baneblade that is 1" bigger all the way around. Use that next time you play him.

 deviantduck wrote:
Make a magnetic base for your baneblade that is 1" bigger all the way around. Use that next time you play him.

Or write "hull" on every single track.

Huh, that's a lot of opinions. I tend to prefer stationary or non-optional parts as hull. I ignore weapons and cosmetic parts for movement and LOS (I know los isn't totally official like that but it's so gimmicky to get shots at 0.1% sight of an antennae). It's just too easy to game the system or get played counting everything. If you don't model treads...what are you getting at exactly? In the defiler example, if the legs don't count there is no charging a defiler at all depending on the spread of the model. If this baneblade does have 1.1" treads it's unchargable anyways from most angles, that's clearly not intended imo.

Hammerheads for example: Antennae, sensors, the little swively part in front, main weapon, missiles, and door don't count. Engines count but must remain stationary (you can model that as you want but no adjusting mid game). Drones and sidearms don't count only because drones could be removed legally. This way you can make fun poses without adjusting gameplay. Again, modeling without engines would make me think you're up to something.

Geez. of course the Tracks are part of the Baneblades hull. Your friend seems to be a really bad Sport.

The FAQs Intention is pretty clear. No optional parts that could be modelled to stick out (like antennae) count.
Also no Parts that could be positioned to stick out do count like turrets and sponsons because they are not always in the same position on every vehicle. Baneblade sponsons can be at three different places on the hull for example. Turrets that are turned sideways could stick out of one side of the vehicle.

Immovable parts that are always a part of the vehicle and always in the same position regardless of its configuration are part of the hull period. The tracks count. Everything else is bs. Thats like saying the forward swept wings on an Eldar Grav tank dont count because of the gap between them.

Morkphoiz wrote:
Geez. of course the Tracks are part of the Baneblades hull. Your friend seems to be a really bad Sport.

The FAQs Intention is pretty clear. No optional parts that could be modelled to stick out (like antennae) count.
Also no Parts that could be positioned to stick out do count like turrets and sponsons because they are not always in the same position on every vehicle. Baneblade sponsons can be at three different places on the hull for example. Turrets that are turned sideways could stick out of one side of the vehicle.

Immovable parts that are always a part of the vehicle and always in the same position regardless of its configuration are part of the hull period. The tracks count. Everything else is bs. Thats like saying the forward swept wings on an Eldar Grav tank dont count because of the gap between them.

What about the legs of a Defiler, or a Triarch Stalker?

 Blndmage wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:
Geez. of course the Tracks are part of the Baneblades hull. Your friend seems to be a really bad Sport.

The FAQs Intention is pretty clear. No optional parts that could be modelled to stick out (like antennae) count.
Also no Parts that could be positioned to stick out do count like turrets and sponsons because they are not always in the same position on every vehicle. Baneblade sponsons can be at three different places on the hull for example. Turrets that are turned sideways could stick out of one side of the vehicle.

Immovable parts that are always a part of the vehicle and always in the same position regardless of its configuration are part of the hull period. The tracks count. Everything else is bs. Thats like saying the forward swept wings on an Eldar Grav tank dont count because of the gap between them.

What about the legs of a Defiler, or a Triarch Stalker?

In short? I dont have a clue. Those things should really be on bases or have a rule similar to the Necron Seraptek.

Personally I'd measure to the legs since everything else would just make no sense at all and would cause further unnecessary complications. I mean, those guys footprints are like 70% legs. The triarch Stalker in particular looks like a measuring nightmare.

 Blndmage wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:
Geez. of course the Tracks are part of the Baneblades hull. Your friend seems to be a really bad Sport.

The FAQs Intention is pretty clear. No optional parts that could be modelled to stick out (like antennae) count.
Also no Parts that could be positioned to stick out do count like turrets and sponsons because they are not always in the same position on every vehicle. Baneblade sponsons can be at three different places on the hull for example. Turrets that are turned sideways could stick out of one side of the vehicle.

Immovable parts that are always a part of the vehicle and always in the same position regardless of its configuration are part of the hull period. The tracks count. Everything else is bs. Thats like saying the forward swept wings on an Eldar Grav tank dont count because of the gap between them.

What about the legs of a Defiler, or a Triarch Stalker?

Measure from the legs, it's really not an issue. You can three-point a Triarch Stalker really easily by having three guys hump one of the Stalker's legs, but that is what it is. I'm shocked over this thread as well and I go by the definition of measuring to anything that is immovable and mandatory on vehicles, with tanks I think it's really simple. With hover vehicles I think it's a little more difficult because of the potential issue of units being within 1" vertically but not within 1" when you factor in the horizontal range as well. Therefore I play as if all my hover vehicles had a base underneath the hull, but that's a house rule, it just makes measuring ranges so much easier, rather than having to use the ole Pythagorean theorem every time I measure range for my Doomsday Arks.

I try and use the... if the vehicle couldn't function (move, float, whatever) without it, it's part of the hull.

So guns, sponsons, turrets, decoration, fins, aerials, spikes are all not part of the hull.

If the tank has tracks or wheels they're part of the hull. If they have grav thingies or rockets, that's hull. Otherwise it'd not be able to move.

With Chaos Rhinos I always declare to my opponent at the start of the battle that I will never measure from the spikes, but everything else is fair game. Clearing it up to begin with is important, but the most important part is playing consistently no matter what you decide.

If you can't agree and the rule is ambiguous just roll off. It doesn't matter as long as it's applied constantly.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:
Geez. of course the Tracks are part of the Baneblades hull. Your friend seems to be a really bad Sport.

The FAQs Intention is pretty clear. No optional parts that could be modelled to stick out (like antennae) count.
Also no Parts that could be positioned to stick out do count like turrets and sponsons because they are not always in the same position on every vehicle. Baneblade sponsons can be at three different places on the hull for example. Turrets that are turned sideways could stick out of one side of the vehicle.

Immovable parts that are always a part of the vehicle and always in the same position regardless of its configuration are part of the hull period. The tracks count. Everything else is bs. Thats like saying the forward swept wings on an Eldar Grav tank dont count because of the gap between them.

What about the legs of a Defiler, or a Triarch Stalker?

Measure from the legs, it's really not an issue. You can three-point a Triarch Stalker really easily by having three guys hump one of the Stalker's legs, but that is what it is. I'm shocked over this thread as well and I go by the definition of measuring to anything that is immovable and mandatory on vehicles, with tanks I think it's really simple. With hover vehicles I think it's a little more difficult because of the potential issue of units being within 1" vertically but not within 1" when you factor in the horizontal range as well. Therefore I play as if all my hover vehicles had a base underneath the hull, but that's a house rule, it just makes measuring ranges so much easier, rather than having to use the ole Pythagorean theorem every time I measure range for my Doomsday Arks.

With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

It's ambiguous at best. The rules state "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this." That could be interpreted to mean you can move articulating parts of the model or move the whole model itself, but not articulate it. The fact no part of the model can move further than the model's maximum Move does provide a decent catch-all fallback regardless of what counts as "moving". I'd have no problem with articulated legs and arms being moved as part of a model's move and I'd struggle to come up an ironclad rules reason why you couldn't.

As this thread demonstrates, it would be helpful if GW would properly define what the "hull" of a vehicle is. Better yet, it might even be preferable for them to drop the word altogether. I'm struggling to think of how that would make the rules worse.

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

I thought FAQs were specific to the units in question? There's quite a few models that can move/articulate, is the Drop Pod the only one with an FAQ?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

I thought FAQs were specific to the units in question? There's quite a few models that can move/articulate, is the Drop Pod the only one with an FAQ?

Yes, because GW are incompetent.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

I thought FAQs were specific to the units in question? There's quite a few models that can move/articulate, is the Drop Pod the only one with an FAQ?

What makes you think that asking the very same developer whether this also applies to predator or rhino doors would not result in a whack on the head with the rulebook?

You can either make an ass out of yourself for claiming RAW despite clear intentions or you can just accept that GW has never has written rules that should be taken literally.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

I've heard of similar debates around the use of drop pods, where the doors can be opened and closed. This is starting to get a little over the top, or into the realm of extremely niche arguments - nearly everyone would not expect someone to move the legs.

Big and small models/hulls/bases have their own advantages and disadvantages, so as long as it doesn't change within a battle, I don't see much difference. If a model has a low profile, that I can't see it to shoot then it cannot shoot me unless it moves. If something is so large it blocks line of site to models behind it... it blocks it to me (unless part of the same unit). Large bases cannot move into certain spaces, but they can tie up lots of people in combat. If you know these things and stick to them in the battle you can deal with them, changing the shape of a model is an extreme example and is bad sportsmanship - consistency, intent and openness is key

I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

They aren't synonymous. But moving part of a model is a subset of moving a model, and therefore covered. Provided that part doesn't move more than the movement characteristic (or the amount of movement allowed).

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

They aren't synonymous. But moving part of a model is a subset of moving a model, and therefore covered. Provided that part doesn't move more than the movement characteristic (or the amount of movement allowed).

If I tell you you have permission to move a Tupperware container from Room A to Room B, that doesn't give you permission to move just the lid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

They aren't synonymous. But moving part of a model is a subset of moving a model, and therefore covered. Provided that part doesn't move more than the movement characteristic (or the amount of movement allowed).

If I tell you you have permission to move a Tupperware container from Room A to Room B, that doesn't give you permission to move just the lid.

If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

 Stux wrote:
If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

That's simply not a logical inference, sorry.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

That's simply not a logical inference, sorry.

And that's not an argument.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

That's simply not a logical inference, sorry.

And that's not an argument.

It literally is? You're making a faulty logical inference.

Slipspace wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

It's ambiguous at best. The rules state "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this." That could be interpreted to mean you can move articulating parts of the model

No it can not, as move means a certain thing in 40k.

or move the whole model itself, but not articulate it. The fact no part of the model can move further than the model's maximum Move does provide a decent catch-all fallback regardless of what counts as "moving".

Move means a certain thing in 40k, so moving the whole model without articulation is the correct way to do it.

I'd have no problem with articulated legs and arms being moved as part of a model's move and I'd struggle to come up an ironclad rules reason why you couldn't.

Well the rules do not allow moving a models legs just the model as a whole.

As this thread demonstrates, it would be helpful if GW would properly define what the "hull" of a vehicle is. Better yet, it might even be preferable for them to drop the word altogether. I'm struggling to think of how that would make the rules worse.

That would be nice, but it is GW so...

So a defiler can cradle/babysit characters by placing the character in-between his legs/claws? You cant shot the character if it's placed like that, and even making it impossible for certain unit to get into cc with the character Defilers need a base...

 Wibe wrote:
So a defiler can cradle/babysit characters by placing the character in-between his legs/claws? You cant shot the character if it's placed like that, and even making it impossible for certain unit to get into cc with the character Defilers need a base...

I've had someone do that with Eldrad and a Wave Serpent, is that illegal or would it enrage you?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

It's ambiguous at best. The rules state "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this." That could be interpreted to mean you can move articulating parts of the model

No it can not, as move means a certain thing in 40k.

or move the whole model itself, but not articulate it. The fact no part of the model can move further than the model's maximum Move does provide a decent catch-all fallback regardless of what counts as "moving".

Move means a certain thing in 40k, so moving the whole model without articulation is the correct way to do it.

The whole point I'm making is that "move" isn't really defined as precisely as you and BCB seem to think. The way it's worded could be interpreted to allow you to move component parts of the model or the whole model. It's ambiguous because it uses the natural English definition of move, rather than a game-specific definition and that leaves room for interpretation because in this context "moved" could cover displacing the entire model a certain distance or only moving a part of it.

As I also stated, I don't think it's actually all that important since the moving rules contain a prohibition on any part of the model moving more than its Movement value, so you can't exploit anything in the rules by moving legs, arms or turrets and keeping the model still.

Slipspace wrote:
The whole point I'm making is that "move" isn't really defined as precisely as you and BCB seem to think. The way it's worded could be interpreted to allow you to move component parts of the model or the whole model. It's ambiguous because it uses the natural English definition of move, rather than a game-specific definition and that leaves room for interpretation because in this context "moved" could cover displacing the entire model a certain distance or only moving a part of it.

As I also stated, I don't think it's actually all that important since the moving rules contain a prohibition on any part of the model moving more than its Movement value, so you can't exploit anything in the rules by moving legs, arms or turrets and keeping the model still.

It's got nothing to do with the definition of move. It's got to do with the fact you're only given permission to move the model, not part of a model.

If I give you permission to deposit a bag of coins into the company bank account, do you have permission to only deposit half of them? Same for moving a tupperware container into another room vs moving just the lid.

What’s with the ‘analogies’ that actually aren’t and illuminate nothing? As ever, change the question you change the answer. Change the scenario and you change the outcome. And Tupperware is never bound by the rules of 40K, so it’s a pointless insertion into the conversation.

I agree with Stux that if you *really* need it the rules cover moving bits just fine. But to be honest I’d never stop anyone rotating a turret or sponson when they move a model, so long as it’s not moved again after firing. For the avoidance of hamfeline doubt, yes, that’s HIWPI. It’s the most sensible option rather than bleating “the rules don’t let you move your turret!” when, as Stux has demonstrated, they actually do if you need them to.

But as the thread is about vehicle hulls and the question has been answered it’s probably better to lock the thread and start a separate one if this *really* needs to be hammered out. Which it really doesn’t.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
So a defiler can cradle/babysit characters by placing the character in-between his legs/claws? You cant shot the character if it's placed like that, and even making it impossible for certain unit to get into cc with the character Defilers need a base...

I've had someone do that with Eldrad and a Wave Serpent, is that illegal or would it enrage you?

It would not enrage me, but I would give em a long nostril exhale and maybe a closed mouth smile

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The whole point I'm making is that "move" isn't really defined as precisely as you and BCB seem to think. The way it's worded could be interpreted to allow you to move component parts of the model or the whole model. It's ambiguous because it uses the natural English definition of move, rather than a game-specific definition and that leaves room for interpretation because in this context "moved" could cover displacing the entire model a certain distance or only moving a part of it.

As I also stated, I don't think it's actually all that important since the moving rules contain a prohibition on any part of the model moving more than its Movement value, so you can't exploit anything in the rules by moving legs, arms or turrets and keeping the model still.

It's got nothing to do with the definition of move. It's got to do with the fact you're only given permission to move the model, not part of a model.

If I give you permission to deposit a bag of coins into the company bank account, do you have permission to only deposit half of them? Same for moving a tupperware container into another room vs moving just the lid.

That Tupperware thing is a completely faulty analogy, because you're talking about a discrete location, and that isn't how movement works in the game.

Again, depositing doesn't work because it is discrete.

If you move part of something you would say that the thing has moved. That's basic English, not a faulty inference.

The rules already cover adjusting movable parts just fine if you follow RAW properly. You are really reaching on this one.

 Stux wrote:
If you move part of something you would say that the thing has moved. That's basic English, not a faulty inference.

And if the rules did not define move, then that would be fine to use the English definition.

But the rules define move so any basic English is over-ridden by the 40k Rules.

The rules already cover adjusting movable parts just fine if you follow RAW properly.

They do not.

They cover moving the model from one place on the battlefield to another (Measured in inches). They do not allow you to articulate the model as you move the model a certain number of inches though

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If you move part of something you would say that the thing has moved. That's basic English, not a faulty inference.

And if the rules did not define move, then that would be fine to use the English definition.

But the rules define move so any basic English is over-ridden by the 40k Rules.

The rules already cover adjusting movable parts just fine if you follow RAW properly.

They do not.

They cover moving the model from one place on the battlefield to another (Measured in inches). They do not allow you to articulate the model as you move the model a certain number of inches though

There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

 Stux wrote:


There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

This is equivalent to "But nothing says I can't"

The rules do not say that I can't drink some whiskey to auto-pass a morale test, but that does not mean I can do it.

You can move part of it, but you will end up moving the whole thing, because movement is measured in inches from the starting point to the end point. there is no allowance to move just the turret.

"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet." (40k Battle Primer P. 3)

This is talking about displacing a model from one position to another on the battlefield. The context of what they are talking about matters.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

This is of course not at all relevant.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:


There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

This is equivalent to "But nothing says I can't"

The rules do not say that I can't drink some whiskey to auto-pass a morale test, but that does not mean I can do it.

You can move part of it, but you will end up moving the whole thing, because movement is measured in inches from the starting point to the end point. there is no allowance to move just the turret.

"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet." (40k Battle Primer P. 3)

This is talking about displacing a model from one position to another on the battlefield. The context of what they are talking about matters.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

This is of course not at all relevant.

You are reading more into the definition than is there - it doesn't talk about displacing the whole model, it talks about moving it. A part of something moving means that thing has moved. That's it.

This is absolutely not a case of "it doesn't say I can't" it's a case of "does say I can", if you actually understand what words mean.

The example is very relevant, it is demonstrating what something moving means. The crux of the discussion.

 Stux wrote:


You are reading more into the definition than is there - it doesn't talk about displacing the whole model, it talks about moving it.

And as per the P 3 definition these are the same thing in the 40k rules.

A part of something moving means that thing has moved. That's it.

Not as far as the 40k rules are concerned.

This is absolutely not a case of "it doesn't say I can't" it's a case of "does say I can", if you actually understand what words mean.

Yet you are putting things there that clearly are not there. There is no provision to articulate a models parts. The only allowance is to move the model up to a set distance.

The example is very relevant, it is demonstrating what something moving means. The crux of the discussion.

It really is not. What happens in "musical statues" (Whatever that is) has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:


You are reading more into the definition than is there - it doesn't talk about displacing the whole model, it talks about moving it.

And as per the P 3 definition these are the same thing in the 40k rules.

A part of something moving means that thing has moved. That's it.

Not as far as the 40k rules are concerned.

This is absolutely not a case of "it doesn't say I can't" it's a case of "does say I can", if you actually understand what words mean.

Yet you are putting things there that clearly are not there. There is no provision to articulate a models parts. The only allowance is to move the model up to a set distance.

The example is very relevant, it is demonstrating what something moving means. The crux of the discussion.

It really is not. What happens in "musical statues" (Whatever that is) has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

If you want to house rule it then fine, but don't claim it's the rules. You're adding on extra clauses that aren't there to restrict the definition, and that's just arguing in bad faith.

 Stux wrote:
There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet."
Emphasis mine. 40k has a permissive ruleset, so rather than needing the rules to say you cannot do something to prevent you from doing said thing, you need the rules to allow you to do something before you can do it. The rules permit you to move the entire model, not individual parts of the model. If you are moving the arm of your Knight in a direction, you are not moving the model in that direction, you are moving the arm of the Knight in that direction. If I tell you that you can move forwards or stand still and you move your arm forwards you have not moved forwards, you have moved your arm forwards. If the rest of your body isn't moving with you then your entirety have not moved, you have moved part of the model. In the case of 40k, you would need explicit permission to move part of the model, rather than the entire model. It also creates wacky issues of raising your gun one round to see over a piece of terrain and lowering it the next or after using an ability that lets you move the model to get out of LOS, but I don't know if you can be swayed by RAI.

I don't really see how that's a "wacky issue". It's just part of the game. You still generally won't be able to poke a turret out to shoot without giving the opponent the opportunity to do so back in their turn, which seems fair to me. The RAI is clear to me that it should be allowed, so that's not an issue for me at all.

Look, I really don't buy this reading of the text (it never talks about "entire" or anything like that - that's something people are adding to it) but it's clear I'm not going to convince the entrenched positions of some of the posters here. From a RAW perspective it's a pretty weak argument they are making, but there's no point going in circles further.

 Stux wrote:
I don't really see how that's a "wacky issue". It's just part of the game. You still generally won't be able to poke a turret out to shoot without giving the opponent the opportunity to do so back in their turn, which seems fair to me. The RAI is clear to me that it should be allowed, so that's not an issue for me at all.

Look, I really don't buy this reading of the text (it never talks about "entire" or anything like that - that's something people are adding to it) but it's clear I'm not going to convince the entrenched positions of some of the posters here. From a RAW perspective it's a pretty weak argument they are making, but there's no point going in circles further.

Which direction did you move your model when you changed the facing of the gun barrel?

Any direction I want, as per the rule.

If a model rotates in the spot, what direction did it move in? What about the point it pivoted on? By your reading I don't think we are allowed to pivot anymore...

There is nothing in any of the movement rules people are quoting that addresses moving part of a model. RAW it is never mentioned or addressed. People are indeed interpreting move a model as move the entire model, but that is an interpretation. In this case it comes down to RAI, and if a disagreement occurs it should be rolled for as the rules suggest.

The rules specifically mention that situations may arise which the rules do not make clear, under "the most important rule". Yet people still try to act as though there is a clear RAW answer to every possible situation. The English language is not perfect and GW's utilization of it is even less so.

 Stux wrote:
Any direction I want, as per the rule.

If a model rotates in the spot, what direction did it move in? What about the point it pivoted on? By your reading I don't think we are allowed to pivot anymore...

Towards whatever the model is facing. No, by my reading you can totally pivot because you still picking the entire model up and moving it to face a different direction, you are simply moving it 0" and as long as that 0" move required no part of the model to move more than the max allowed move it is totally fair. It is only your reading that creates wonky situations and possibilities of not glueing your models together creating a possible advantage. If I ripped apart my Sergeant during the game to put his sword higher or lower and glued him back together I would have also just moved the model, is that fair? How about if I switch between all kneeling and all standing tau fire warriors by having putty in their knees? No this line of thinking leads to bad places fast, as do all "but it doesn't say I can't" lines of thought. No it says you can move the model, purposefully changing only part of the model's pose is cheating as far as I'm concerned, as would changing the face of a die be after you rolled it (it doesn't say I can't). If anything you should refer back to rule 1, which is clearly in my favour.

 Stux wrote:


If you want to house rule it then fine, but don't claim it's the rules. You're adding on extra clauses that aren't there to restrict the definition, and that's just arguing in bad faith.

I did not add that you can move a part of the model, you did that.

The rules I posted are the RAW.

Movement, as per the BRB means displacement of the model measured in inches.

SO, what we can all take from this is that you can shoot at any part of a vehicle's hull that moves when the music stops, so long as it is not in a Tupperware container.

If you still have any potential concerns, discuss with your opponent before the game.