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.

Firstly I've put this here as it's not a rules question, although I do admit it has rules implications. And I hope that framing it as a discussion rather than rules call will make conversation less.. heated. Mods please feel free to move this if you think it should be elsewhere.

What defines a model? In many of the recent threads people have asked about line of sight and what constitutes a target, and many replies have cited that the base is part of the model. But is that actually the case?

The reason I ask that is that it has been part of the rules in previous editions that the base is ignored for the purpose of determining Los after people suggested modelling walls onto the bases to hide their figures. Now that was previous editions, I accept we have a new edition. However, all the 'official', ie GW, examples that I have seen, for los in this edition, have cited weapons and banners providing validation as a target, but never mentioning the base as a valid target. Or they use the generic term 'model'.

The closest that I've ever got to defining the concept of 'model' is the guidance given by GW that models are to be put on the base that they came with. By that sentence GW has defined that a base is not part of the model. However I also accept the base and figure is all one 'model kit' and that it was merely guidance given on a slightly unrelated matter.

Is there any defining statements as to what a model is?

Cheers

Andrew

Yes, the base is part of a model. To say otherwise is like saying your pinkie toe isn't part of your body.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, the base is part of a model. To say otherwise is like saying your pinkie toe isn't part of your body.

No but it's a fair question I don't think you can dismiss that easily. You put the model on a base, so base is potentially a separate thing.

Is there any precedent for GW referring to the base as the model in any rule or FAQ?

Actually, they specifically mention to ignore the base (and bits sticking out like antennae and gun barrels) when determining LoS/cover in Kill Team.

But they tell you to use the base in most instances of measuring to a model. This could just be a way of stating which part of the model determines distance because, IIRC in older editions you used to measure from a weapon's barrel to determine whether a target was in range or not.

Quasistellar wrote:
Actually, they specifically mention to ignore the base (and bits sticking out like antennae and gun barrels) when determining LoS/cover in Kill Team.

Currently we don't ignore banners/attennae/gun barrels in 40k though, meaning that for the purposes of rules in 40k, they are different in how they approach the game.

That said, I'd say the base is still separate from the model as they will tell you to measure to and from the base specifically, using it as a separate entity than the model that is on it for determining things such as range.

They could just be specifying which part of the model to use for measuring rather than meaning that the base is a separate part of the model. It would be akin to saying measure from a persons shoulder to where ever to determine distance. The shoulder is still part of the person.

There is no ‘ignore bits’ rule in current 40K so you don’t ignore bits. The base is absolutely part of the model, as we measure distances to and from it. Playing it any other way or demanding a definition proving its part of the model is a bit silly.

This is technically a model. If you can play with it and make up rules for it it's a model.

To the best of my recall, 40k has 3 discernible parts. The "Battlefield" which is the surface upon (and above) which the other game pieces are placed.

"Terrain" that has identified effects, such as blocking LoS, and providing cover save modifiers. In general, neither player can move terrain during a game, though there could be exceptions.

There are "models", that represent the entities of the game, such as Space Marines and Orks. As the base is not the battlefield, and moves around, I would define it in game terms as being part of the "model" entity.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, the base is part of a model. To say otherwise is like saying your pinkie toe isn't part of your body.

No offence Bacon, but you pride yourself as a raw purist. And that answer is not raw, unless of course you can provide a reference? As I said earlier this can be interpreted both ways as being part of the model and not part of a model.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There is no ‘ignore bits’ rule in current 40K so you don’t ignore bits. The base is absolutely part of the model, as we measure distances to and from it. Playing it any other way or demanding a definition proving its part of the model is a bit silly.

I dont think it is silly as you put it, and Im not demanding a definition, Im asking if anyone has one. For the last two editions the base was excluded under the tlos rules. This edition still has tlos, but unhelpfully did not define 'model' as a target. One example on which Bacon opined an answer was in respect to a flying stand. If you could see the clear stem through a window you could shoot the bike/drone.

As heartening as it is to see BCB and Johnny on the same side, I think we need a little more than stating it's obvious or that the alternative is silly here. Is there anything really meaty to the argument that the base is the model?

I measure to the base to see if I'm in range of a target model rather than to the model itself. Look at a flyer there can be instances where I can touch the base but no way that I can touch, what you would refer to as the model attached to the base, and I'm allowed to attack the model.

Claiming that the rules instruct you to use the base that comes with the model as the basis of claiming that they are 2 separate things is incorrect. Otherwise you could claim that the turret of a LRMT is not part of the model since you are told to attach it to the main part of the model.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I measure to the base to see if I'm in range of a target model rather than to the model itself. Look at a flyer there can be instances where I can touch the base but no way that I can touch, what you would refer to as the model attached to the base, and I'm allowed to attack the model.

Claiming that the rules instruct you to use the base that comes with the model as the basis of claiming that they are 2 separate things is incorrect. Otherwise you could claim that the turret of a LRMT is not part of the model since you are told to attach it to the main part of the model.

However the rules specifically address the issue, telling you to move into base to base contact. Which is a point, base to base, not model to model.

Leo, the problem is that nowhere is 'model' defined in game terms, anywhere. It did in previous editions but not this one.

All the posts so far are intuitions and assumptions, including my own, but as Stux said is there any meat to anyones opinions?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GBT has an interesting point, but again its an assumption as only the battlefield and terrain has a definition in the BRB.

I believe that "Model" is also defined... I don't have the rulebook available at work, and I may be remembering a past edition... 20 years of rules stacks up in the old memory banks.

I'm fairly certain there are only 3 defined "elements" to a game of 40k, and the base as part of the Model and not Battlefield or Terrain is sensible. My apologies if I'm remembering something from another era.

In the rules it says that you measure base to base for distances (if appropriate). Under moving the BRB says "When you move a model in the Movement Phase,it may not be moved within 1" of any enemy models."

This would seem to indicate that the base is part of the model. Otherwise it would use the phrase can not move within 1" of an enemy model's base to distinguish the base from the model.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
In the rules it says that you measure base to base for distances (if appropriate). Under moving the BRB says "When you move a model in the Movement Phase,it may not be moved within 1" of any enemy models."

This would seem to indicate that the base is part of the model. Otherwise it would use the phrase can not move within 1" of an enemy model's base to distinguish the base from the model.

I'm convinced. Base = Model. Would you guys shoot from/to a model where only the base is sticking out around the corner?

GBT, model is not defined, and terrain only loosely. Past editions were a lot tighter. And the books a lot thicker.

Leo, that sentence gives your argument legs. I had never noticed that.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
In the rules it says that you measure base to base for distances (if appropriate). Under moving the BRB says "When you move a model in the Movement Phase,it may not be moved within 1" of any enemy models."

This would seem to indicate that the base is part of the model. Otherwise it would use the phrase can not move within 1" of an enemy model's base to distinguish the base from the model.

I'm convinced. Base = Model. Would you guys shoot from/to a model where only the base is sticking out around the corner?

Personally, no. I always take los from the figure itself and not from the base. Placing figures on terrain is difficult enough without worrying if a sliver of a flying base can be seen round a corner of a building.

Fine, you wanna go down that route? What defines a Roll? What defines an Inch? What defines the order of numbers to determine if 4 is greater than 3?

The game requires the use of the English Language to parse anything that isn't specifically defined. That's just how the game works.

So lets say the base is not the model.

I pose my Riptide in a really cool way! He's doing a highkick while flailing with his arms, with his one planted foot in the center of his base.

You try to charge him with a dood. You move it base-to-base. CC happens (we'll skip the technicals there for a minute), and it's my shooting phase.

If the base is not a model, and they're base to base, but no part of the rest of the model is within 1" of your model, does that mean I can shoot? No enemy models are within 1" of me, right?

I agree with Bacon that this one has to be derived from the language, a basic postulate of the game. But I'd warn that a "Model is not part of the base" general decision might have some very odd impacts at weird places in the game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Fine, you wanna go down that route? What defines a Roll? What defines an Inch? What defines the order of numbers to determine if 4 is greater than 3?

The game requires the use of the English Language to parse anything that isn't specifically defined. That's just how the game works.

Irrelevant.

In basic maths 4>3. In basic measurement the length of an inch is agreed on.

Nowhere in basic language is it defined that a base is part of the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
In the rules it says that you measure base to base for distances (if appropriate). Under moving the BRB says "When you move a model in the Movement Phase,it may not be moved within 1" of any enemy models."

This would seem to indicate that the base is part of the model. Otherwise it would use the phrase can not move within 1" of an enemy model's base to distinguish the base from the model.

This, however, is something. While not 100% conclusive, it does suggest some intent that base is model. Certainly heading in the right direction anyway.

Technically I think the most important distinction about bases is that we have specific rules that don't allow you to contact or move within a certain distance of other models bases. Therefore they are part of the model in game terms. The model its self is more or less only there for LOS purposes - everything else is done with the base.

Technically though - you can use whatever base you want for a model...so....your model can be as big or small as you want.

A model is defined by how it physically is constructed/modeled.

When drawing TLOS, you can draw it from any point of the model. So, if you can "see" the lance sticking out form a dawneagle jetbike from your banner sticking out, you have TLOS to the model.
Distance to the model is measured from base to base as per RAW. You ignore "things that are sticking out" for the purpose of measuring distance UNLESS stated otherwide such as Hovering" rule where it dictates where and how to draw distance to/from the said model.

It's a very confusing area.

Bharring, your specific case isn't valid, as the rule requires you to be outside of 1" of enemy units. Not models. Also, as specified by the rules all measurements are to be taken from the closest point of the bases. But certainly open to other oddities that may be there.

Leo had a point with the no movement to within 1" of an enemy model, however the measurement rules then specifies use of the base to determine that distance.

For example-

https://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2018/5/6/946666_mb-.JPG

This gentleman. If for example I can only see the tip of the spar but not the assassin, is he a valid target?

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
https://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2018/5/6/946666_mb-.JPG

This gentleman. If for example I can only see the tip of the spar but not the assassin, is he a valid target?

Andrew

As RAW, if you can see ANY PART of the model, you have established a TLOS. In order to be eligible target however, the assassin, measured from base to base, must be in range of weapon bein chosen to be fired.

Being eligible target is two part condition.

 skchsan wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
https://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2018/5/6/946666_mb-.JPG

This gentleman. If for example I can only see the tip of the spar but not the assassin, is he a valid target?

Andrew

As RAW, if you can see ANY PART of the model, you have established a TLOS. In order to be eligible target however, the assassin, measured from base to base, must be in range of weapon bein chosen to be fired.

Being eligible target is two part condition.

I think it should also be noted that we could draw a distinction between the actual base itself, and anything modelled onto the base - rocks, ruins etc.

skchsan, Stux, are you both saying that the assassin would be a valid target if the only part visible is the spar (and assuming in range.)

Stux, that argument now creates a daisychain effect. The base is part of the model, but that tree/bush/spar is part of the base ergo part of the model. Where do you stop?

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
skchsan, Stux, are you both saying that the assassin would be a valid target if the only part visible is the spar (and assuming in range.)

Stux, that argument now creates a daisychain effect. The base is part of the model, but that tree/bush/spar is part of the base ergo part of the model. Where do you stop?

Andrew

I mean... That's the easy bit. You either stop where the actual model meats the terrain OR where the terrain meets the actual base. Or you say absolutely everything is model of course.

I confess to being not too bothered about some of the distinctions here. If I can see a torso, I've got line of sight. If I can see a head, line of sight but with cover - probably. Banner? rifle barrel? base only? Can't see it.

I may be extrapolating but if my opponent shoots at me because he or she can see the base sticking round a corner, I'm not so sure I want to play. YMMV

You need to apply heaps of common sense to this edition’s rules. Not popular and I get vilified for saying that, but it’s true. If nothing says exclude the base it’s part of the model, because there’s enough in there (like measuring) to infer it is, and nothing to the contrary.