Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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