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.

Heya guys; I don't have the big rulebook and can't remember if it has it in it but essentially it's escaped my mind how you measure distance from vehicles. Some flyers (Stormraven I think) and skimmers (Wave Serpent) specify where to measure from, such as the hull.

It came up today and I couldn't remember if the 'hull' counted as any part of the model or just the main chassis for the purpose of measuring distance, such as firing a flamer from a vehicle. Could I measure for the weapon from the dozerblade or any other 'aesthetic' part of the vehicle?

Hasn't come up in quite a long time but I'm pretty sure you measure from any part of the model unless specified otherwise,

Thanks everyone.

If the vehicle has a base you measure closest point base to base as usual. If the vehicle has no base you measure to the closest point of the main body/chassis, excluding antennas, guns, banners, etc. Unless a special rule says otherwise.

 p5freak wrote:
If the vehicle has no base you measure to the closest point of the main body/chassis, excluding antennas, guns, banners, etc. Unless a special rule says otherwise.

This is incorrect.

8th does not specify between main body/chassis and antennas/guns/banners/wings etc etc...

You measure from the closest part of the model. It doesn't matter what part of the model it is.

 Lance845 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
If the vehicle has no base you measure to the closest point of the main body/chassis, excluding antennas, guns, banners, etc. Unless a special rule says otherwise.

This is incorrect.

8th does not specify between main body/chassis and antennas/guns/banners/wings etc etc...

You measure from the closest part of the model. It doesn't matter what part of the model it is.

OMG Some people still dont know the difference between LOS and measuring. This has been discussed many, many times in YMDC.

Q: How do I determine if a model is visible to
another model?
A: The models are visible to each other if you can draw
a straight, uninterrupted line between any part of one
model to any part of the other.

LOS is from any part of the model, distance measuring is from the hull.

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).

Both quotes from the stepping into a new edition of warhammer 40k which was released many, many months ago.

Great. Where is the rule that defines the hull as not including banners/antenna/other gak?

Unless something actually defines what the hull is the hull is the model itself.

A banner is not the hull. The rules do not define - they leave it up to player interpretation/agreement. Saying a banner is the hull is not being very agreeable.

Anyway, the rule you’re looking for is on the first proper page of the free Battle Primer, OP. Sidebar to left: “Tools Of War”.

Cool. So just to be clear...

1) In 7th edition we had a definition for the term "hull" that was only the main body of a vehicle and did not include all the little dodads and extra bits and weapons coming off the model.

2) 8th has no such definition.

3) In 8th not applying the 7th ed definitions to 8th ed rules is "not being very agreeable."

4) This is an acceptable basis for providing a RAW answer to a rules question in YMDC



Nope. If you and your opponent want to agree to a definition of "hull" that excludes whatever that is great! It's up to you guys. Good times. It's also a house rule.

How do you define hull as the model when that includes parts such as turret, sponsons. Which are clearly not part of the hull?

Right now GW have left it open as hull but surely there is a convention that hull is hull, turret isn't etc isn't?

Ice_can wrote:
How do you define hull as the model when that includes parts such as turret, sponsons. Which are clearly not part of the hull?

Right now GW have left it open as hull but surely there is a convention that hull is hull, turret isn't etc isn't?

The rules are the rules man.

You can't add outside influences/elements/conventions to the games own rules and expect them to carry any mechanical weight. The game defines it's own elements (or doesn't as is the case here) and then you follow the rules as they are written. This isn't the first time in the rules that something is poorly defined it won't be the last. You and your opponent agreeing to a definition that suits your play is awesome. Go for it. I agree its the best way to go. But if you want to define what the ACTUAL rules say in the ACTUAL rule book then "hull", without any other definition, is is the model that doesn't have a base. Because thats the only difference we get between when we measure one way or the other.

 Lance845 wrote:
Cool. So just to be clear...

1) In 7th edition we had a definition for the term "hull" that was only the main body of a vehicle and did not include all the little dodads and extra bits and weapons coming off the model.

2) 8th has no such definition.

3) In 8th not applying the 7th ed definitions to 8th ed rules is "not being very agreeable."

4) This is an acceptable basis for providing a RAW answer to a rules question in YMDC



Nope. If you and your opponent want to agree to a definition of "hull" that excludes whatever that is great! It's up to you guys. Good times. It's also a house rule.

Thanks for summarising stuff I didn’t write. Feel free to sum up your own stance but let’s not erroneously sum to for others, eh?

I said you have to have a conversation and agree with your opponent. Please don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I get you’re looking for a hard RAW line here but there isn’t one. An antenna is not the hull, obviously. That’s the basis of my answer.

And spare me the ‘cute house rule’ retort too, eh? You’re the one house ruling if anyone:

From the Designers Commentary:

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of the model. It does not include things such as turrets, sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still doubt, we recommend both players agree about what constitutes the hull of such models before the battle begins.

Satisfied? This was addressed super early on and still just says, RAW, “chat and agree beforehand”. I was arguing RAW throughout. Helps if you read FAQs and the DC before attacking.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

From the Designers Commentary:

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of the model. It does not include things such as turrets, sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still doubt, we recommend both players agree about what constitutes the hull of such models before the battle begins.

Satisfied?

Yup!

This was addressed super early on and still just says, RAW, “chat and agree beforehand”. I was arguing RAW throughout. Helps if you read FAQs and the DC before attacking.

I am sorry you read anything I wrote as attacking. I wasn't. I was just stating what I had from the rule book factually. Disagreement is not an attack. Much like the game itself, it has become unreasonable to expect anyone to review/read/have with them the now dozens upon dozens of pages of FAQs and errata needed to stay up to date on all the rulings and corrections GW has made to their game. The OP asked about the BRB. I answered about the BRB. I never disagreed with discussing with your opponent. I only said whatever you and your opponent agree to is a house rule. As is the case every time that happens.

No worries. The “Just to be clear 1,2,3,4 etc.” posting style came off as very passive-aggressive, apologies if not intended that way but it’s how it reads, for future ref.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No worries. The “Just to be clear 1,2,3,4 etc.” posting style came off as very passive-aggressive, apologies if not intended that way but it’s how it reads, for future ref.

Yup. It wasn't a passive aggressive move. I was literally asking for clarity of your argument at that point in the conversation. You made your post coming off the back end of P5 saying the doodads and bits were, definitively, not the "hull". So I was trying to summarize your point for clarity.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

From the Designers Commentary:

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of the model. It does not include things such as turrets, sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still doubt, we recommend both players agree about what constitutes the hull of such models before the battle begins.

How does this interact with walker type vehicles,like the Triarch Stalker, or other similarly long legged, no base models?
Personally, my local group has been counting legs as hull, but clarification is always helpful.

 Blndmage wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

From the Designers Commentary:

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of the model. It does not include things such as turrets, sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still doubt, we recommend both players agree about what constitutes the hull of such models before the battle begins.

How does this interact with walker type vehicles,like the Triarch Stalker, or other similarly long legged, no base models?
Personally, my local group has been counting legs as hull, but clarification is always helpful.

Yeah that's what I'd do t, tbh. 'Hull' desn't mean 'legs' by definition, but on larger models the legs are a not-insignificant part, and taking them out would immobilise the walker, so it makes sense to count them as hull/measurable to. There is no hard and fast rule on it, save what you agree with your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No worries. The “Just to be clear 1,2,3,4 etc.” posting style came off as very passive-aggressive, apologies if not intended that way but it’s how it reads, for future ref.

Yup. It wasn't a passive aggressive move. I was literally asking for clarity of your argument at that point in the conversation. You made your post coming off the back end of P5 saying the doodads and bits were, definitively, not the "hull". So I was trying to summarize your point for clarity.

No worries, just not good form to include things I didn't say that coincidentally support your point and weaken mine.

Anyway, I've pointed to the actual rules on this so I hope we're all clear.

 Blndmage wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

From the Designers Commentary:

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of the model. It does not include things such as turrets, sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still doubt, we recommend both players agree about what constitutes the hull of such models before the battle begins.

How does this interact with walker type vehicles,like the Triarch Stalker, or other similarly long legged, no base models?
Personally, my local group has been counting legs as hull, but clarification is always helpful.

Yes, count the legs - they're certainly part of the "main body" or the model, like legs are part of the main body on a living creature.

 doctortom wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blndmage wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

From the Designers Commentary:

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of the model. It does not include things such as turrets, sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still doubt, we recommend both players agree about what constitutes the hull of such models before the battle begins.

How does this interact with walker type vehicles,like the Triarch Stalker, or other similarly long legged, no base models?
Personally, my local group has been counting legs as hull, but clarification is always helpful.

Yes, count the legs - they're certainly part of the "main body" or the model, like legs are part of the main body on a living creature.

While I completely agree, an argument could be made that states the "main body" is just the...body and doesn't include any extremities.
This is why pregame discussion to define these is so important. I actually like that GW encourages this, rather the define every little detail in pages and paged of rules and essentially punish players who like to convert and expand on the hobby side.
Heck, even "out of the box" Defilers could potentially have a wide variance between models depending on how you arrange the legs

-

As Johnny Hell points out, taking out the legs on a walker would immobilize it, so the legs are a non-trivial part of the walker.

This is like when GW started putting out flyers and people were trying to say that the wings on the plane were not part of the hull and therefore not something you count when you target the plane, even though if you shoot the wings off a plane it crashes, because GW said "wings don't count" before they made vehicles that were flyers. GW came back and FAQ'd that the wings on vehicles do count as part of the main body and count as something you can target. Legs would be in a similar situation (though there has never been a statement by GW that "legs don't count")

I agree that there should be a pregame discussion, though, just to avoid potential issues between opponents and so that everybody is clear.

I didn't mean to suggest that they were trivial, just that the mobility of them on the model makes them inconsistent.
Your Defiler's legs could be in completely different positions than mine, for example, but their bodies should be the same.

I've also seen players that haven't glued the legs in place and thus they can move from turn to turn (usually not on purpose though)
A similar argument could come up for Drop pod doors

-

I model my unit with.

1) Giant turret, on
2) Legs

By this threads definitions, you wouldn't be able to measure to any part of it.

fe40k wrote:
By this threads definitions, you wouldn't be able to measure to any part of it.

No. I am making the argument that a player could interpret legs and turrets as not the main body, however the vast, VAST majority of players will likely count things like turrets and legs. Especially if the turret IS the main body.
This particular issue seems to have been intentionally left for the players to decide. So at the end of the day, whatever you and your opponent agree on is the official RAW.

-