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.
JohnnyHell wrote: 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.
Ohh I agree very much. I've always said GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not clueless idiots who can use common sense and that we're not out to rules lawyer our way to victory
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
JohnnyHell wrote: 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.
Ohh I agree very much. I've always said GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not clueless idiots who can use common sense and that we're not out to rules lawyer our way to victory
Brace for “common sense isn’t common” and other fun replies. ;-)
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: 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.
I totally agree with the first part! It just leads me to a different conclusion.
That's why if all I can see is base, I don't think I should be able to shoot. That's common sense right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/05 10:19:24
JohnnyHell wrote: 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.
Ohh I agree very much. I've always said GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not clueless idiots who can use common sense and that we're not out to rules lawyer our way to victory
Brace for “common sense isn’t common” and other fun replies. ;-)
The other issue is that while common sense is required, the subtleties of language like the American meaning of pants and the uk meaning of pants being different also makes writing rules without stating all assumptions very open to interpretation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/05 10:33:26
JohnnyHell wrote: 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.
Ohh I agree very much. I've always said GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not clueless idiots who can use common sense and that we're not out to rules lawyer our way to victory
Brace for “common sense isn’t common” and other fun replies. ;-)
The other issue is that while common sense is required, the subtleties of language like the American meaning of pants and the uk meaning of pants being different also makes writing rules without stating all assumptions very open to interpretation.
Can’t disagree with that, but it is what it is. Potential for misinterpretation aside, my point stands.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
A Rhino does not have a base - does it therefore mean that it cannot be targeted, because no base? If you were to say, "No - you can still target the model, then you have just stated that the model IS a separate entity from the base.
Then there is this model.
If you could only see the statue under the horse's rear legs, could you shoot it?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/06 07:21:31
AndrewC wrote: Bharring, your specific case isn't valid, as the rule requires you to be outside of 1" of enemy units. Not models.
Units are made of multiple or singular models.
Therefore the base is part of the model insofar as the rules are concerned.
E - for units that have no base, such as a Rhino, or for units that don't measure from their base (such as Grav Tanks), where you measure to/from on the model is specifically mentioned.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/06 08:42:14
AndrewC wrote: Bharring, your specific case isn't valid, as the rule requires you to be outside of 1" of enemy units. Not models.
Units are made of multiple or singular models.
Therefore the base is part of the model insofar as the rules are concerned.
E - for units that have no base, such as a Rhino, or for units that don't measure from their base (such as Grav Tanks), where you measure to/from on the model is specifically mentioned.
The second sentence is the leap we are questioning here. This is never stated in the rules, it's an assumption, and I don't think you've really shown it logically follows from your first point at all.
I don't think the common sense argument as presented by JohnnyHell cuts it either, as it leads to situations that go strongly against common sense especially where you can shoot at a model when you can only see its base.
AndrewC wrote: Bharring, your specific case isn't valid, as the rule requires you to be outside of 1" of enemy units. Not models.
Units are made of multiple or singular models.
Therefore the base is part of the model insofar as the rules are concerned.
E - for units that have no base, such as a Rhino, or for units that don't measure from their base (such as Grav Tanks), where you measure to/from on the model is specifically mentioned.
The second sentence is the leap we are questioning here. This is never stated in the rules, it's an assumption, and I don't think you've really shown it logically follows from your first point at all.
I don't think the common sense argument as presented by JohnnyHell cuts it either, as it leads to situations that go strongly against common sense especially where you can shoot at a model when you can only see its base.
We can't finish movement within 1" of a model. Distance between models is measured from base to base (unless otherwise stated). Surely this implies that the base is part of the model? If not, why?
In addition when we fire at flyers we measure, specifically, to the base. In that instance if you can see the base you can fire at the model. What makes you think it's different elsewhere?
AndrewC wrote: Bharring, your specific case isn't valid, as the rule requires you to be outside of 1" of enemy units. Not models.
Units are made of multiple or singular models.
Therefore the base is part of the model insofar as the rules are concerned.
E - for units that have no base, such as a Rhino, or for units that don't measure from their base (such as Grav Tanks), where you measure to/from on the model is specifically mentioned.
The second sentence is the leap we are questioning here. This is never stated in the rules, it's an assumption, and I don't think you've really shown it logically follows from your first point at all.
I don't think the common sense argument as presented by JohnnyHell cuts it either, as it leads to situations that go strongly against common sense especially where you can shoot at a model when you can only see its base.
We can't finish movement within 1" of a model. Distance between models is measured from base to base (unless otherwise stated). Surely this implies that the base is part of the model? If not, why?
In addition when we fire at flyers we measure, specifically, to the base. In that instance if you can see the base you can fire at the model. What makes you think it's different elsewhere?
When we measure distances between models we always measure to and from the base. This much is stated in the rules. So if a model can't be within 1" of another model, we look at the rules for what this means and they tell us to measure from base to base.
This does not tell us the base as part of the model though. It simply refers us to the base for this measurement.
Line of sight rules are different to measuring distances, and do not reference the base at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll also add here that part of the issue is that 'model' is an overloaded term.
It is both used for the physical model, and for an individual object within the rules.
This causes issues when discussing opinions on WYSIWYG too for instance. Sentences like 'The model doesn't have to be holding the weapon that the model is equipped with' haha
It's not as bad as 'wound' but it can be problematic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/06 10:03:14
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.)
Yes, it is a valid target. Conversely, the assassin would also be able to draw a line of sight against its targets from the spar. The advantage/disadvantage goes both ways, so it would totally make sense for enemies to draw TLOS to the assassin's spar.
JohnnyHell wrote: 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.
I totally agree with the first part! It just leads me to a different conclusion.
That's why if all I can see is base, I don't think I should be able to shoot. That's common sense right?
IMO, common sense is that I have my lumps of plastic on the table, and you have yours, and if you can see a piece of my plastic from around where your piece is standing, you can go ahead and shoot. I don't need to know any more details.
Or maybe, common sense is asking your opponent. If your opponent thinks it's ok to target a base, don't position your model with just the base sticking out around a corner.
Less arguments if anything that can be seen, including base, can be shot, just don't purposely model for advantage. The base represents the area in which the model is located.
Is it ok to have half a squad of guard kneeling while the other half was standing to have the Front Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire look. Sure!
Would it be cool to have all infantry modeled to be kneeling or lying down? Not so much.
Stux wrote: When we measure distances between models we always measure to and from the base. This much is stated in the rules. So if a model can't be within 1" of another model, we look at the rules for what this means and they tell us to measure from base to base.
This does not tell us the base as part of the model though. It simply refers us to the base for this measurement.
It does though? If the rules state "when we measure distances between models we measure to and from the base" then the base is part of the model. It is literally the thing from which we measure distances to and from, a model to another model. Therefore it is part of and integrated with the "model".
Stux wrote: Line of sight rules are different to measuring distances, and do not reference the base at all.
The only difference is that we draw line of sight to any part of the model. Not just limited to the base (which, as we can see above, is part of the model), but also the antennae, the gun barrel, the banner etc etc etc.
I kind of feel the answer as intended is more dynamic. Given the assassin example yes the spar would probably count odd as it is, given that it's not part of the assassin itself.
Likewise the base is to be considered part of the mini for working out movement and combat.
For me this is where the fluidity comes in, because the base is a placeholder for a models theoretical mass/space abstracted. However I wouldn't consider an empty section of base valid for targeting, as to give a weird and wonky example, if you had a hammerhead behind a raised walkway, the tank itself is 100% obscured but the base is visible under the bottom. That base literally represents empty space, under no circumstances would it be fair to target it based on that.
Further extrapolations, bang a grot on a 100mm round base, hide the grot behind a barrell, is the base enough to count?
Dudeface wrote: I kind of feel the answer as intended is more dynamic. Given the assassin example yes the spar would probably count odd as it is, given that it's not part of the assassin itself.
Likewise the base is to be considered part of the mini for working out movement and combat.
For me this is where the fluidity comes in, because the base is a placeholder for a models theoretical mass/space abstracted. However I wouldn't consider an empty section of base valid for targeting, as to give a weird and wonky example, if you had a hammerhead behind a raised walkway, the tank itself is 100% obscured but the base is visible under the bottom. That base literally represents empty space, under no circumstances would it be fair to target it based on that.
Further extrapolations, bang a grot on a 100mm round base, hide the grot behind a barrell, is the base enough to count?
Yea in the Hammerhead example it would be a legal target. It's the same with flyers except for them we are told to measure distances to the base (because GW don't want to penalise players by making them count vertical distance). At least your Hammerhead would be in cover though. This also might be entirely fair. The unit may well be costed with exactly this expectation in mind.
Don't put grots on 100mm bases.
We're not literally fighting wars here guys, the models are supposed to represent the dynamic ebb and flow of combat.
Stux wrote: When we measure distances between models we always measure to and from the base. This much is stated in the rules. So if a model can't be within 1" of another model, we look at the rules for what this means and they tell us to measure from base to base.
This does not tell us the base as part of the model though. It simply refers us to the base for this measurement.
It does though? If the rules state "when we measure distances between models we measure to and from the base" then the base is part of the model. It is literally the thing from which we measure distances to and from, a model to another model. Therefore it is part of and integrated with the "model".
I simply don't agree with your logic here, I believe it to be flawed. Just because a rule references a base that belongs to a model that does not entail that the base and the model are one continuous thing.
Dudeface wrote: I kind of feel the answer as intended is more dynamic. Given the assassin example yes the spar would probably count odd as it is, given that it's not part of the assassin itself.
Likewise the base is to be considered part of the mini for working out movement and combat.
For me this is where the fluidity comes in, because the base is a placeholder for a models theoretical mass/space abstracted. However I wouldn't consider an empty section of base valid for targeting, as to give a weird and wonky example, if you had a hammerhead behind a raised walkway, the tank itself is 100% obscured but the base is visible under the bottom. That base literally represents empty space, under no circumstances would it be fair to target it based on that.
Further extrapolations, bang a grot on a 100mm round base, hide the grot behind a barrell, is the base enough to count?
Yea in the Hammerhead example it would be a legal target. It's the same with flyers except for them we are told to measure distances to the base (because GW don't want to penalise players by making them count vertical distance). At least your Hammerhead would be in cover though. This also might be entirely fair. The unit may well be costed with exactly this expectation in mind.
Don't put grots on 100mm bases.
We're not literally fighting wars here guys, the models are supposed to represent the dynamic ebb and flow of combat.
Currently on holiday so don't have access to the rulebook, but wouldn't the hammerhead then be considered to be in line of sight to return fire thanks purely to its base? Which seems at best dubious.
"Stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model" would only apply if you disregard the hammerhead altogether.
Dudeface wrote: Currently on holiday so don't have access to the rulebook, but wouldn't the hammerhead then be considered to be in line of sight to return fire thanks purely to its base? Which seems at best dubious.
Why dubious? It's entirely fair. If I can shoot you, you should be able to shoot me, right?
Dudeface wrote: "Stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model" would only apply if you disregard the hammerhead altogether.
Not following? The 'model' includes the base. Stoop down and look from behind the entire thing. If a part of the model can see another part of an enemy model you can fire at it. In the Hammerhead's case, if the base was completely hidden but the Hammerhead itself was visible then you'd draw LOS from there, or vice versa.
Dudeface wrote: Currently on holiday so don't have access to the rulebook, but wouldn't the hammerhead then be considered to be in line of sight to return fire thanks purely to its base? Which seems at best dubious.
Why dubious? It's entirely fair. If I can shoot you, you should be able to shoot me, right?
Dudeface wrote: "Stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model" would only apply if you disregard the hammerhead altogether.
Not following? The 'model' includes the base. Stoop down and look from behind the entire thing. If a part of the model can see another part of an enemy model you can fire at it. In the Hammerhead's case, if the base was completely hidden but the Hammerhead itself was visible then you'd draw LOS from there, or vice versa.
I'll concede that raw yeah that's all legit but for me and my group I think we'd probably have a chat about it pre-game, which is what I advise anyone with doubts does.
ValentineGames wrote: I always find it odd how this sort of questioning and reasoning never appears in any other wargaming system EXCEPT 40k...
Some will cling onto aaaaaany tiny sliver of possible advantage...
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
We measure to the base of the model, so the model possesses a base, but a base is not a model.
So many possible ways of measuring distance to a 'model', The part you can see? The centre? The body? Only one way of measuring to the base, so we measure to the base that belongs to the model, but target the model itself.
The rule writers don't help by being clear and consistent in what they mean, but hey, welcome to 40k :-)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 13:09:00
Well, I am a bit more involved with 40k so the rules and FAQs state for bases and models:
Spoiler:
Moving:
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.
Choose Targets:
If unsure, stoop down
and get a look from behind the shooting
model to see if any part of the target is
visible
"Q. When shooting with models, do I measure ranges from the model’s weapons, or from its base (or hull, if it’s a vehicle without a base)?
A. Distances are measured from the closest point of the model’s base (or from the closest point of the vehicle’s hull if it does not have a base) to the closest point of the target’s base (or hull)."
"Q. If a Vehicle model has a base, but it is itself larger than the base (such as a Stormraven Gunship), what do I measure to – the base or the hull of the vehicle?
A. Unless such a model’s datasheet has an ability saying otherwise, you measure to and from the model’s base."
Now, to what defines the model?
That depends, assuming for for wargaming, it is for the model to act as an "icon" for the unit described or depicted.
The base typically is rolled into the rules of the game so becomes a critical item depending on how the rules are stated.
Next, it helps to be representative hence many games state some WYSIWYG elements, this I would say "defines the model".
Does it look like a Space Marine?
Does he have a plasma pistol and chain sword?
Is he a Sgt.?
By rights, a printed cardboard cutout has been all we needed in the past to "define" a model.
We tend to like to make things more pretty since the days of cardboard chit wargaming.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Stormonu wrote: A Rhino does not have a base - does it therefore mean that it cannot be targeted, because no base? If you were to say, "No - you can still target the model, then you have just stated that the model IS a separate entity from the base.
No, because the rules specifically state that models without bases measure from the hull instead. And a model without a base is still a model; your logic here is flawed beyond reason.
From what I can see, model is defined as how the players define it at the start of the game. In a friendly game, you can make up some rules to make things easier. In a tournament setting, they will have their own, stricter rule sets. As players, you and your opponent must decide what makes the game expedient, fair, and fun.
I think it is that simple. If you want to shoot at the base of a model, then your opponent can too. That's just fair.
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
mod·el ˈmädl/Submit
noun
1.
a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.
It's funny how the players from no other rule sets never seem to ever have this issue.
Yet I've never seen a ruleset define what is or is not a model.
Then you go over to the 40k player base and they seem to be divided over everything.
Even how many sides a D6 has or what constitutes a tape measure.
It's quite hilarious to watch.
ValentineGames wrote: It's funny how the players from no other rule sets never seem to ever have this issue.
Yet I've never seen a ruleset define what is or is not a model.
Then you go over to the 40k player base and they seem to be divided over everything.
Even how many sides a D6 has or what constitutes a tape measure.
It's quite hilarious to watch.
Other games I've played it's been unambiguous, unlike in current 40k.
Malifaux for instance does all line of sight and measuring from the base, the model is purely decorative. I quite like that as a system because it gives the players freedom to convert however they like and not be accused of modelling for advantage or whatever!
ValentineGames wrote: It's funny how the players from no other rule sets never seem to ever have this issue.
Yet I've never seen a ruleset define what is or is not a model.
Then you go over to the 40k player base and they seem to be divided over everything.
Even how many sides a D6 has or what constitutes a tape measure.
It's quite hilarious to watch.
Other games I've played it's been unambiguous, unlike in current 40k.
Malifaux for instance does all line of sight and measuring from the base, the model is purely decorative. I quite like that as a system because it gives the players freedom to convert however they like and not be accused of modelling for advantage or whatever!
And Malifaux only has minor terrain on a 3x3 (or is it 4x4) and very little shooting, try putting hufe LoS buildings, ruins and play on a 6x6 with 100 models where 80 of them shoots, come back and tell me how well those rules are now.
40k is suppose to be LoS to models for many reasons.
The model is whatever you built/glue/based/move/placed on the table, yes this includes the base unless otherwise stated (Hover stats you dont use the base), so yes the base is part of the model.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k