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.

You are using the term "identical" disingenuously. Dice which I think we can all agree ualify as D6es can be large or small, rounded or not, have their pips drilled in or not (or have Arabic or Roman numerals instead of pips), and so on. What degree of resemblance is sufficient? What is the quiddity of the D6? Clearly things like size, colour, minor details of shape, the means by which the number is displayed and so on are not essential to D6ness. What is your basis for deciding that exact similitude in shape and size to a GW base are essential to baseness (ha)?

I assure you that I am quite sincere in my use of the term "identical". Sameness is what we should be looking for, and sharing relevant identity criteria is sameness for that frame of reference.

The rules declare "area" and "size" the salient properties of a base on page 6 of the rulebook, hence we can ignore properties like weight, viscosity, grueness, and flavour. The referents, grouped as they are by size and shape, agree with the rules.

A base is the same size and shape as a GW base, when it is as different in these regards from a GW base as a GW base is from a GW base.

how can you be so stupid -- if a blast marker hits a model (be it tank or troop) and the center of the marker is over the base he is hit end of story -- the whole thing about it covering part of the base if the center hole is over the first model and the blast marker covers part of another one -- it seems to me like you are just trying to twist the wording of the rules to cheese yourself into a winning ----sorry about the rant

Oh my god you're all completely silly. Nurglitch, you're using logic which has no place with the people that say "POINT TO THE RULE!" in which case no matter what, if there isn't a line in a GW official source that says "this situation is handled this way" they won't actually accept any sort of linking or combining of words and text to figure out the way to do things.

Answer: No, there's no handling of the situation in the rulebook. Tell your friend that models on really large bases get hit if the hole is over the center because if they don't then they're being rules lawyers and they're an inch away from losing an opponent that doesn't enjoy playing with people that are that stingy.

Or if you see it that way as well, agree that yes bigger models get an additional 4+ "dodge save" that allows them to avoid blast weapons and move on.

Nurglitch: The vehicle reasoning doesn't work not only because it's vehicle rules and not normal models, but because the vehicles are also auto-hit if the center hole is NOT over the model's base, they're just hit at half strength. So pointing out that the model is hit if the hole covers it isn't quite right because that's not the case for every model.

Just talk to your group about how to handle it.

Oh, and if someone is basing their models on base sizes different from GW's standards, I would discuss during the game how to treat them, and insist that for blast marker consideration, they count as their original base size. And if they have a problem with it, tough.

-Spellbound

You know, if GW simply had had the presence of mind to state that GW models can only be based on official GW bases, this whole silly debacle would never have had started...

The Chaos Bikes I bought at my store last month came with bases that are larger than the small blast marker by about 1/2 a cm. It is not possible for the small blast marker to completely cover these bikes with the bases provided by GW.

Per RAW, the unit can only take a partial hit. You will have to house rule it if you want different behavior.

Blackmoor wrote:Am I missing something? When would this ever come up?

In 40k the largest base is 60mm (the one for carnfexs, wraithlords, heavy weapons teams, etc. ) and the small blast template completely covers it. If you are dealing with items from Apocalypse, you will have to consult those rules.

Came up when I was shooting the tempest launcher from my reaper exarch at a bike squad that was mounted on 3'x1' bases (or something very close to that). Since the bases were as long as the diameter of the blast marker, there were always some corners that would poke out the side even if the blast marker was directly over the center of the base.

Obviously, the solution is to ban Bikes from 5th Edition...

Nurglitch... The size of the base is only relevant to rules in that it be greater than a certain value, specifically that of the GW base supplied with the model. That's all. The rules do not refer to specific base sizes or shapes, just bigger than what comes in the box or blister.

For instance, consider the Terminator. The last box I bought had both the small 24cm bases and the larger bases. Apparently both are fine. However, that only defines the lower limit. I can put a termi on a monsterous creature base. I can put it on a bike base (by your reasoning.)

So the only thing that keeps me from putting the terminator on say a 4x4" square is the fact that the rules are PRESUMABLY referring only to bases that GW manufactures, based on the idea the base must be bigger than what is in the box.

So, by extension, if I model a scenic base on my carnifex, and the edges of the terrain go over the edge of the base, is that now illegal?

If I model a very top heavy daemon prince, must I shy from putting him on a slightly larger base to provide stability?

All despite the fact that it never once mentions "You must use a GW manufactured base."

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Blackmoor, a 40k base can legally be of unlimited biggitude.

Thus the so-called "Jeff Reynolds" rule from the US GT a few years back. He had a Chaos army where his cultists were on 40mm bases (purely for decorative reasons, of course!) whie his HtH daemons were on 25mm bases (for some reason the "decorative reasons" didn't apply to the units that could profit from small bases). I played him at a warm-up RTT and it was annoying as heck. A unit of 20 Cultists blocked LOS to half the table and it was impossible to get more than one or two models with a blast (or even flamer) template.

The year after Mr Reynolds took that army to the GT they put in one of a very few "named" rules into the packet to prevent that sort of thing from happening again...

Vale,

JohnS

Phoenix wrote:So it has come to my attention that there are models that can’t be hit by blast weapons because they are too large. Seems kind of odd to me but let me run this past everyone and see what you guys think.

So in the blast rules, it says something to the effect of ‘Models that have their bases fully under the blast template are hit automatically while those that are partially under the template are hit on a 4+’. So what happens when the primary target of the template has a base that is larger than the template (bikes, monstrous creatures, and the like)? It would seem that the RAW would state that these models could only ever be partialed. Is this just yet another odd rule inconsistency or is there something I’m missing?

Because this topic has become so askew and i am un-aware if the origional poster has a clear answer so i shall answer it now. IF you have a model modeled on a base it did not come with, and its now larger than said blast template, said model can now only ever be hit on a 4+. Despite the opinions others may have. And despite the opinions people may have RAW does not say use only GW products for bases.

And besides GW does make a model assembled out of box that has this problem anyway, without any changes... it is the space marine attack bike. It ends up being 3 cav bases in size.

It's actually good that it doesn't matter now. I haven't seen anyone playing SM mounted on trash can lids lately. I also haven't seen too many blast markers either.

My viewpoint on this whole silly argument is as follows:

Is the model in question on a GW produced base of appropriate shape?

Answer is:

yes=keep playing with model

no=get model off of table

So you wouldn't play with people like Mannahnin with their GF9 oval bases for bikes? How about the lozenge-shaped cavalry base + two halves of a round base bike solution?

Depends on whether the person is just power-gaming or if it is for artistic purposes. Power gamers can go away. I've played with one and we don't play wargames like this anymore despite still being friends. I tried to explain it once but he thought I wasn't trying hard enough to min/max what I was playing. I try to play a balanced sometimes themed army with a little bit of everything for fun.



But my basic belief on the topic is that the model comes with a base. Just put it on the base. Play. End of all arguments.

If it comes with multiple bases(example given earlier was new terminators coming with 25mm and 40mm bases) go to local GW store and ask. Barring that, agree upon it with your fellow gamers you play with regularly. They are the ones who have to worry about it.

I haven't seen the GF9 bases but I tend toward 'No' without seeing them. And if you mean the 40mm square base with 2 halves of a 40mm round on either end. Then no is the answer again. Maybe a cav base with two halves of a 25mm base on either end. At least then the bike would fit on the base end to end.

wilsmire gets it. Even if a model doesn't fit entirely under a Blast Template, it's hit when its unit is hit and that marker is centered over it. That's the rules.

What's not the rules, but just one of those facts of life, is that there aren't any Warhammer 40k bases that won't fit completely under a Blast template.

Either way, it's not a problem.

*shrug*

Huh? The centered bit only applies to Vehicles. Not to models with bases. Which may be as large as the player desires.

Nope. It applies to any model under the hole in the marker after a successful to hit roll with a Blast weapon.

Edit: Double post

Nurglitch wrote:Nope. It applies to any model under the hole in the marker after a successful to hit roll with a Blast weapon.

A rule in the Vehicle section, that refers specifically to Vehicles, applies to any model... why, exactly?

The regular rules for Blasts require the model to be fully covered. The center hole does nothing more than determine the placement of the blast marker.

I liked T-C's argument about identical dice, and biggetude of bases.

So does this mean that I can't use my Dakka dice against someone because they are not official GW products? What if we both agree to use non-official GW products before the game starts? Then my opponent could use his GF9 movement trays for his demons on round bases right? If i put a blast marker over a unit of ranked demons on round bases on a GF9 movement tray, would they all be hit on a 4+, since the blast marker doesn't cover the whole tray?

Supposed we made that aggreement, and we both bring warjacks and warcasters, and warbeasts and warlocks? Would we ever have this argument again?

Nurglitch wrote:wilsmire gets it. Even if a model doesn't fit entirely under a Blast Template, it's hit when its unit is hit and that marker is centered over it. That's the rules.

What's not the rules, but just one of those facts of life, is that there aren't any Warhammer 40k bases that won't fit completely under a Blast template.

Either way, it's not a problem.

*shrug*

Yes they do i already mentioned it... the space marine attack bike, only comes with cav bases, and needs 3 to be properly based. And when this is finished its 3 cav bases or 1 large SQUARE monster base. Which is larger than the small blast template.

Nurglitch wrote:Nope. It applies to any model under the hole in the marker after a successful to hit roll with a Blast weapon.

I think I get where Nurglitch is coming from. When you follow the rules for shooting it is: Pick a Target, Roll to hit, Roll to wound, etc.

If I fire a frag missile, I roll to hit. If I hit with the d6 roll, then its a hit on the target model. Period. Heck, when I fire a frag or any blast weapon at a single model, regardless of size, I never even bother to place the template. Its a single hit on the single model I "hit" with the weapon when I rolled the d6.

I only use the template to see what "other" models are hit by the blast. I've never had an issue in any RTT, GT, or any other type of T

Cruentus, that would be a great rule change, but that ain't what the BBB says...

Due to overwhelming use of NON GW bases for this game in many areas I have played in, I play it in the way that nerdliche is so adamantly defending.

But thats not what the rules say.

I wonder if GW will go so far as to ban non gw bases in 5h ed. It would be stupid, but I wouldn't be surprised either.

Rulebook:Special Weapon Characteristics:Blast Weapons wrote:When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected.

Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically.

So, yeah, apparently the rules do say that you roll to hit as normal. That means once if you roll at least the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit that shot hits. If this hit is scored, then the unit has been hit at least once. Additional hits can be scored if additional models have their bases covered by, or partially covered by, the blast marker.

That means once if you roll at least the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit that shot hits. If this hit is scored, then the unit has been hit at least once.

Please show how you derived this.

As usual, Nurglitch is incorrect by any strict reading of the rules.

If the BS roll is passed, you place a template. Then you resolve to template to determine which models (if any) are hit.

At no point does the rule say that any *model* is actually hit.

I don't actually get what the argument is about here.

If your base is not 100% covered by the blast marker, you are only hit on a partial.

Unless you are a vehicle, which has clearly separate rules.

Whilst this is not 110% explicitly stated in the BGB, I direct your attention to the Apocalypse rulebook, where on P91 - shooting at monstrous creatures - it states that (emphasis mine):

"If a gargantuan creature is hit by a weapon that uses a blast marker, the normal rules for determining if the creature is hit by the marker are not used (as the marker may be smaller than the creature's base, and so it could never score a direct hit)."

The rules are clear; base not covered 100%? Sorry, its a partial. And please, no-one tell me about how this isn't an answer; its a GW supplement, quoting how their own rules work, and how they are changed for apocalypse. So normally, only partials.

NR

tegeus-Cromis:

On page 30, as quoted, we are enjoined by the Blast Weapon rules to roll to hit as normal. The normal way of rolling to hit is detailed on page 22. The normal to hit rules on page 22 say that:

"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot...The dice score needed to hit will depend on how accurate the firers are (as shown by their Ballistic Skill characteristic or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit."

So if you roll to hit as normal with a blast weapon, and normally successfully rolling to hit means that you've scored a hit, then that means that the firing unit has hit its target with the blast weapon.

So rolling at least 3+ for a BS4 model armed with a blast weapon is enough to say that its target unit has been hit by that blast weapon. Now the question becomes: Has the unit been hit in the normal way, or are we dealing with a situation in which there are two senses of the term "hit" where there's the hitting the unit, and then hitting the models in the unit under the blast marker?

Well, as quoted, upon a hit being scored you place the hole of the blast marker over one model in the unit. You do this to see how many models are affected. By 'affected' the rules explicated themselves to mean 'hits', very definitely in the second sense of being under a template and not hit as normal. The question is, therefore, are these affected models hit in addition to the model under the template's hole that was hit in the normal manner, or is it the case that not model in the unit was hit when the attacking player rolled to hit in the normal manner and hits are actually determined by the relation between the blast marker and the models in the unit?

Clearly it is the former, because we are rolling to hit as normal, not simply rolling to hit to place a marker. There is the one model that is hit in the normal way, and there are a number of models that are also hit because they happened to be either completely or partially covered by the marker when it was placed over a unit, and thus a model, it had just hit.