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.

There are some models out there that are just plain huge: Squiggoths, Tyranid biotitans, ect. It is quite possible that you can put a blast template on them, or even ordnance, and have 100% of the template over the model. However, since the model's base is not fully covered do you still have to role a 4+ to hit it?

It seems that rules as written would say you would have to role. The model would be hard to miss with ordnance, but could still be uneffected half the time.

How would you play this?

The RAW are perfectly clear in this situation: If a model's base is to larget to be covered by a blast or Ordnance marker than it is only ever going to be hit on a D6 roll of 4+.

Or are you asking how people actually play this? If so, I think this topic would make a fine YMTC poll.

Chalk it up as an advantage of being huge.

I like how a vehicle only needs the center hole but the living creature that is like a vehicle has to be covered, darn you wonky rules!

This would make a fine rules poll.

I will echo Yakfaces remarks about this being a good inclusion into the polls.

When you think about this, this also somewhat validifies the magic cylinder light role.

If the models base isnt completly covered by the marker, then it is only hit on a 4+. This gives rationale to the model occupying the area of the base of the model in a dynamic way.

"I like how a vehicle only needs the center hole but the living creature that is like a vehicle has to be covered, darn you wonky rules!"

Actually, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. On a living creature, if the marker is smaller than the creature, it's more likely to hit something non-essential, so less likely to do any real damage.

Posted By insaniak on 09/27/2006 1:38 PM
Actually, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. On a living creature, if the marker is smaller than the creature, it's more likely to hit something non-essential, so less likely to do any real damage.

"So less likely to do any real damage." 

Thats what the wounding roll is for, wouldn't you think?

I'd play it if you put 100% of the template onto the base and still don't cover the base, it's a hit.  Roll to wound.

"Thats what the wounding roll is for, wouldn't you think?"

Not entirely, since the wound roll doesn't take the size of the creature into account, or the location hit, since it ordinarily doesn't matter.

A firecracker going off on your foot is going to hurt you far less than a firecracker going off in your ear.

the firecracker theory is o.k. however I think that a creatures toughness determines weather or not you can consider it a firecracker.

I look at it as how can a grenade miss a biotitan??

Take baseball (str 2) take school (tough 8) how can said ball miss the school? However the str vs toughness therefore gives it a firecracker at foot effect.

But firecracker in ear of biotitan?? So what do we have now? A ticked off deaf Biotitan with a headache but probably not that hurt to take off a wound.

Just playing devils advocate

"the firecracker theory is o.k. however I think that a creatures toughness determines weather or not you can consider it a firecracker."

A firecracker is ALWAYS a firecracker. Or, to put it back in game terms, a weapon's Strength remains the same, no matter how Tough its target is.



Here's what it really boils down to:

There's a game mechanic that works a particular way, that doesn't appear at a first glance to make much sense in real world terms.

You have two choices:

1: Change the rule to something that suits you more. In which case you'll only be able to play that way against people who agree to your house rule... or

2: Play by the rule as written, and either accept that sometimes the rules aren't an accurate simulation, or come up with a different explanation that fits, even if it means the rule, in fluff terms, doesn't quite work the way you previously thought it did.


It's up to the individual player as to which of those solutions they use. For myself, since I prefer to play by the RAW as much as possible, it's always going to be option 2.

In this case, that means that if the template is not large enough to cover the base, it's only a partial hit. The fluff explanation I offered is good enough for me. You're welcome to come up with your own.

A firecracker is a firecracker, however to a smaller creature it can be deadly like a bomb, to a whale it is an annoyance.

What I meant was the creatures toughness determines if the grenade can be considered a firecracker or a bomb.

No I play RAW, but this is one that RAW has never made sense to me, but RAW never always makes sense, or sometimes the mechanics would be even more complicated.

Could you imagine a different set of rules dependant on the base size of things. Different base sizes affect you enemies BS because you are bigger, bigger things move slower, bigger things handle blasts differently, up their BS because they can see over things better, cause earthquakes as they walk, can step on things by mistake, etc....oh the chaos that would ensue.

Most men like women, women = complicated, that does not mean most men like complicated things, so we do need to keep it simple.

Like I said I was just trying to play devils advocate

Sounds like a good reason to put vehicles on bases! Right? :p