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.

Hello fellow gamers!

Today I was playing a match of 40k and my friend (who is much more experienced in 40k than I am) and I had a disagreement on how to use the blast template marker. Specifically he shot a blast template at a unit and did not scatter, but part of the shot overlapped the staff of my sorcerer who was near but didn't touch the models base (the staff is sticking out quite a bit). It also touched the vent on the backpack of a nearby troop, but once again wasn't over the base.

I was under the impression that you ignored accessory bits when figuring out who was hit, as if a template hits a units cape or sword that's sticking out in a heroic pose it seems silly to me that would cause a wound. I defer to your collective expertise, and would appreciate it if you could weight in on one side or the other.

Thanks in advance!

UrbanAvalon wrote:
Hello fellow gamers!

Today I was playing a match of 40k and my friend (who is much more experienced in 40k than I am) and I had a disagreement on how to use the blast template marker. Specifically he shot a blast template at a unit and did not scatter, but part of the shot overlapped the staff of my sorcerer who was near but didn't touch the models base (the staff is sticking out quite a bit). It also touched the vent on the backpack of a nearby troop, but once again wasn't over the base.

I was under the impression that you ignored accessory bits when figuring out who was hit, as if a template hits a units cape or sword that's sticking out in a heroic pose it seems silly to me that would cause a wound. I defer to your collective expertise, and would appreciate it if you could weight in on one side or the other.

Thanks in advance!

The blast marker must cover part of the model's base.
It should be under the blast special rule. (I don't have a book at hand.)

I did some digging in the rule book and this is what I found:

BRB Pg 12. Blast Markers and Templates

"A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker. Remember that a model's base is counted as being part of the model itself, so all a template or blast marker has to do to cause a hit is to cover any part of the target's base."

BRB Pg 14. General Principles (Line of Sight)

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on."

I'm not sure if using the blast template counts as "line of sight"... in my mind it could still be argued either way.

UrbanAvalon wrote:
I'm not sure if using the blast template counts as "line of sight"... in my mind it could still be argued either way.

Using a blast marker is nothing to do with the LOS rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ond Angel wrote:
The blast marker must cover part of the model's base.
It should be under the blast special rule. (I don't have a book at hand.)

Nope, the rules tying blasts to the models base no longer exist. Covering part of the base is enough to consider it a hit, but is no longer the requirement. The marker just has to be over a part of the model.

UrbanAvalon wrote:
I did some digging in the rule book and this is what I found:

BRB Pg 14. General Principles (Line of Sight)

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on."

I'm not sure if using the blast template counts as "line of sight"... in my mind it could still be argued either way.

Pretty much this. If your weapon doesn't count as "seeing' the model, then it wouldn't count as being part of the model, if its under a blast marker.

Fragile wrote:

Pretty much this. If your weapon doesn't count as "seeing' the model, then it wouldn't count as being part of the model, if its under a blast marker.

Again, LOS has nothing to do with determining whether or not a model is under the marker. So a rule that tells us that certain parts of the model don't count for LOS will likewise have no bearing on whether or not the model is under the market.

These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.


That line right there says it all.

Yes it does.

But it says it about line of sight. Not determining hits from a blast marker.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes it does.

But it says it about line of sight. Not determining hits from a blast marker.

Exactly this

Just my two cents, but most rules consider the base to be the model. For instance, shooting attacks and charge ranges are made from the base even if a part of the model such as a weapon extends beyond it. Keeping this in mind, I find it hard to believe that blast weapons work any differently.

Marshal86 wrote:
Just my two cents, but most rules consider the base to be the model. For instance, shooting attacks and charge ranges are made from the base even if a part of the model such as a weapon extends beyond it.

Anything involving measurement considers the base as the outer limit of the model, yes.

But we're not talking about measurement, here. Whether or not Blast weapons are supposed to go by the base (and I suspect that they are, and this is just a case of sloppy writing), in the current rules they simply don't.

Unfortunately, I don't have 7th edition rules in front of me, but I do have my 6th edition rules available. Under the section describing how blast markers and templates work it says this:

“look underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models’ bases lie partially or completely underneath"

This may have been left out in 7th though.


Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.” v2. Games Workshop, 2013. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Marshal86 wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't have 7th edition rules in front of me, but I do have my 6th edition rules available. Under the section describing how blast markers and templates work it says this:

“look underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models’ bases lie partially or completely underneath"

This may have been left out in 7th though.


Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.” v2. Games Workshop, 2013. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

I think that may be one of things that got changed in 6th. So its an equalizer for Eldar Jetbikes, but a hit for models with large banners and Nids with their claws, it seems.

Marshal86 wrote:
This may have been left out in 7th though.

It was. Hence the previous comments in this thread about it not being in the current rules.

I'm surprised they left the base clarification out of the new rule. It was such a small change that everyone I know has been playing blasts incorrectly. it seems odd that GW would intentionally change the rule in such a way as to penalize certain models for their design.

@ insaniak: I wouldn't be surprised if it is in fact sloppy writing (we shall see when the FAQ comes out). Then again, maybe it was intentional.

After looking through both 6th and 7th rule books, insaniak is correct. 6th says to look at how many bases are underneath the template while 7th says look at how many models are under (and specifies that bases count as part of the models).

It's odd that they say units shouldn't be penalized for impressive weapons & such, then change the wording on template weapons to do just that... but rules are rules.

Thanks for the help!

UrbanAvalon wrote:

It's odd that they say units shouldn't be penalized for impressive weapons & such, then change the wording on template weapons to do just that... but rules are rules.

Do not forget what the Line of Sight rules say though "These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on." (General Principles chapter, Line of Sight section).

These rules, refer to the Line of Sight rules and not the Blast/Template rules.

So I do not find it odd at all.