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.

 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.