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.

In a recent game with a friend i used mordrak and his ghost knight
I shocked right into his huge parking lot (hes playing ig obviously) and got a huge warp rift off that destroyed 1 tank and immobilized the one next to me.
I placed all my guys as good as i could with shocking requirement so that he would get problems using his demo charges and stuff like that on anything but the outer 2 ghost knights due to the disallowance of placing blast markers so they touch friendly models
So now here is what he did
He placed all his blasts in a way that he targeted the knight in the center but he only could do so wihtout touching the tank by "aiming" the center hole of the marker on the stormbolter of my mordrak conversion (by doing that the hole only merely touched the base)

Was that legit ?
I read the rulebook part about blasts but its not quite clear.

As long as the hole touches any part of the base, it's a valid target.
edit: It doesn't matter if the marker covers part of the model - it doesn't have to. It must only cover part of the base.

The hole barely touching the base is fine.

No, not at all riggt rigeld

The ENTIRE hole must be entirely over the base, not just part of it. There is certainly no requiremebt fir the hole to be centred over the base, but it must be entirely over tue base

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, not at all riggt rigeld

The ENTIRE hole must be entirely over the base, not just part of it. There is certainly no requiremebt fir the hole to be centred over the base, but it must be entirely over tue base

BRB page 30 says, "with its hole over the base of the target". It does not say "entirely over the base" or any other possible wording that requires the entire hole.

Is there another rule I'm missing? I didn't see anything in the BRB FAQ under Shooting.

If part of the hole is not over thr base, the yiu have not complied with the rule.

Its one of the few times, like measuring to a unit and deployment, where a qualifier is not necessary

so the consensus is that there is no consensus ? ^^

nosferatu1001 wrote:If part of the hole is not over thr base, the yiu have not complied with the rule.

Its one of the few times, like measuring to a unit and deployment, where a qualifier is not necessary

That's not true.

I park my car so that one tire is over the white line.
My car is over the white line.

In football (handegg to you brits) while running on the sideline I step part of my foot on the white sideline marker.
I am out of bounds.

I'm going to go with Nos on this one.

The rule requires the hole to be over the base, placing it so that only part of the base is covered by the hole does not meet the requirement; the rule doesn't say "part of the hole" it says "the hole".

We play it as the entire hole over any part of the base.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If part of the hole is not over the base, the you have not complied with the rule.

Its one of the few times, like measuring to a unit and deployment, where a qualifier is not necessary

In football (handegg to you brits) while running on the sideline I step part of my foot on the white sideline marker.
I am out of bounds.

Rig, that illustrates the point perfectly.
BRB page 30 says, "with its hole over the base of the target".

Its hole refers to the hole in the blast marker. The hole, by default encompasses every part of said hole.

Just like in football, you need to have your whole body touching the base playing surface, if a part of your foot touches the white sideline marker, which marks the edges of the playing surface, you are out of bounds.

This thread has discussed in detail about being on or off the table, the same concept is applied in the case of the blast marker.:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/315833.page

Rigeld - except your car is also not over the white line

In this case the hole has to be over the base; if i can point to a part that isnt over the base, then that part hasnt complied with the rules.

Regardless of the snarky and snide bits, there is a fair amount of inconsistency, so only the relevant rules matter (which is to say the on/off table thing does not matter).

For example, being within 2" of something does not mean you have to be entirely within 2" of something.

kirsanth wrote:Regardless of the snarky and snide bits, there is a fair amount of inconsistency, so only the relevant rules matter (which is to say the on/off table thing does not matter).

For example, being within 2" of something does not mean you have to be entirely within 2" of something.

If I came off as snarky and snide, I apologize, My post was not meant that way.

The on/off table thing illustrates the point of 'the hole' needing to be 'over the base of the target' perfectly.

The hole refers to all of the area the hole covers. The base refers to all of the area that is the base. it is this way because 'the hole' and 'the base' are inclusive of all parts of said object.

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Regardless of the snarky and snide bits, there is a fair amount of inconsistency, so only the relevant rules matter (which is to say the on/off table thing does not matter).

For example, being within 2" of something does not mean you have to be entirely within 2" of something.

If I came off as snarky and snide, I apologize, My post was not meant that way.

The on/off table thing illustrates the point of 'the hole' needing to be 'over the base of the target' perfectly.

The hole refers to all of the area the hole covers. The base refers to all of the area that is the base. it is this way because 'the hole' and 'the base' are inclusive of all parts of said object.

Not just you - we all do it ^^.
Regardless. If the base always refers to "all of the area that is the base" then disembarking would work differently.


Editing to add:
I pretty much mean that when referencing a rule, it rarely (read: never) helps to use other rules - or real-world examples as some sort of precedence.

DeathReaper wrote:This thread has discussed in detail about being on or off the table, the same concept is applied in the case of the blast marker.:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/315833.page

So when you deploy, you must deploy with your entire base within 2" of a transport?
Although I think it's interesting that nos was arguing that .000000001" on the board counts as on the board in that thread, and is arguing the opposite now.
As far as getting on the board, it's nothing like the blast marker. There's FAQs that say the entire model must be on the board. I can't find anything that says the entire hole must be on the base.

nos wrote:In this case the hole has to be over the base; if i can point to a part that isnt over the base, then that part hasnt complied with the rules.

That's false - the hole is over the base. I can point to part of the hole and show that it is over the base.

Rigeld - no, because the requirement on disembarking is goverened by the rules for measuring to units. And measuring tells you that you are within X if any part of your base is within X

Not an apples and apples comparison

You have to look at the requirement: the requirement is to be over the base. If part of the hole is NOT over the base, then you have broken the rules

I am not arguing the opposite, because the requirements are different. Plus, given the fact that GW did indeed rule that you must be entirely on the table (well, f you want to avoid immediate destruction, that is) you would imagine that an analogous situation would be ruled the same way

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - no, because the requirement on disembarking is goverened by the rules for measuring to units. And measuring tells you that you are within X if any part of your base is within X

Not an apples and apples comparison

Fair enough.

You have to look at the requirement: the requirement is to be over the base. If part of the hole is NOT over the base, then you have broken the rules

Part of the hole is over the base. That part, right there. What, you can't see what I'm pointing at?

I am not arguing the opposite, because the requirements are different. Plus, given the fact that GW did indeed rule that you must be entirely on the table (well, f you want to avoid immediate destruction, that is) you would imagine that an analogous situation would be ruled the same way

Well, the requirements are not different.

You are required to move onto the board.
You argued that moving barely onto the board was enough.

You are required to place the hole over the target's base.
You are arguing that you must place the entire hole over the base.

I do see that the situations are similar though. I'm just not convinced they're similar enough. I will tell my opponent from yesterday that I might have cheated a little when I placed a blast marker... but it scattered back onto my warriors, so I'm pretty sure he won't mind.

nosferatu1001 wrote: And measuring tells you that you are within X if any part of your base is within X

This is sort of the point. There ARE rules showing that a base is used differently indifferent parts of the game. It does not ALWAYS mean the entire area of the base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interestingly, in the main rules FAQ, the only FAQ regarding blast marker holes mentions that partial counts:

Q: If the hole at the centre of a blast marker is only
partially over the hull of a vehicle, is the hit resolved at
the weapons full Strength? (p60)
A: Yes.


Probably irrelevant, but there it is.

hm I thank all of you guys for ur input i think we will play it with the hole completely covering the base now.
So my drop was like 10% less suicidal after all ! ^^

kirsanth wrote:
Q: If the hole at the centre of a blast marker is only
partially over the hull of a vehicle, is the hit resolved at
the weapons full Strength? (p60)
A: Yes.

Probably irrelevant, but there it is.

I'd say it's relevant. The main rulebook about shooting at vehicles says this:
"If a marker ends over the vehicle, it makes a big difference if the hole in the centre of the marker is over the vehicle or not:"
Per the FAQ, partially over the vehicle equates to "over the vehicle". And it's shooting rules, not disembarking or anything unrelated.......................

I'd say it's not relevant (even though it supports my side) because if I remember the context correctly, it's dealing with post-scatter. No one is arguing that a scatter can put he whole partially on a base - because it can. It's the initial targeting that is being discussed.

rigeld2 wrote:I'd say it's not relevant (even though it supports my side) because if I remember the context correctly, it's dealing with post-scatter. No one is arguing that a scatter can put he whole partially on a base - because it can. It's the initial targeting that is being discussed.

There was no context, that is the whole question from the FAQ.

Interestingly it does not mention scatter which seems to be bumping me towards changing my mind.

I'd say it's not relevant. The current issue is marker placement, and the FAQ makes no mention of it being okay to place the marker with the hole partially over the hull, only that it's okay if it ends up like that.

If it said "If the hole at the centre of a blast marker is only partially over, or placed partially over the hull..." then i'd agree with its relevance, but the FAQ itself seems to be dealing with the marker post-placement.

See Image.

Pied_Piper11 wrote:See Image.

Wow that's deep. Do you have any support for that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'd say it's not relevant (even though it supports my side) because if I remember the context correctly, it's dealing with post-scatter. No one is arguing that a scatter can put he whole partially on a base - because it can. It's the initial targeting that is being discussed.

There was no context, that is the whole question from the FAQ.

Interestingly it does not mention scatter which seems to be bumping me towards changing my mind.

I didn't mean the FAQ alone, I meant the quote from don_mondo plus the FAQ together.

If you cannot place the hole partially over a base, then the only way the hole could end partially over a vehicle is scatter.

rigeld2 wrote:I didn't mean the FAQ alone, I meant the quote from don_mondo plus the FAQ together.

If you cannot place the hole partially over a base, then the only way the hole could end partially over a vehicle is scatter.

Gotcha. Makes sense, but I think it still works.

Even so, I have never played it that way.

Ah well.

More reading, then time to talk with the regulars!

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I didn't mean the FAQ alone, I meant the quote from don_mondo plus the FAQ together.

If you cannot place the hole partially over a base, then the only way the hole could end partially over a vehicle is scatter.

Gotcha. Makes sense, but I think it still works.

Even so, I have never played it that way.

Ah well.

More reading, then time to talk with the regulars!

Funny thing - I've pretty much always played it mostly/completely on the base, just because.
Yesterday I took one shot that was barely on a Khorne zerker's base so I could snipe Abaddon and a few models of the warrior unit nearby (long story as to why he was so closely packed).

The blast scatted 10" over to my Tyranid Warriors and ended up causing 2 wounds. :(

I'vealso always played that it must start completely over the base. But this new FAQ indicates otherwise (given the lack of mention of scatter).

Good call on fhe faq, definitely opens the question up again!

The picture in the BRB shows it completely over the Orks base, if that is any help. It even shows that it is off center, but still completely over the base.