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.

Hey guys having an rules debate with another player would be interested in any FAQs or tournament rulings on this. I was using a baneblade to shoot a swarmlord and measured the range from the closest track on the tank. This puts all the flamers in range in my opinion even though some of the weapon mounts are actually more than 8" away. The Banblade is obviously very wide. My opponent was unhappy with this and is claiming that when measuring to the HULL as per the rule the tracks should not count. They are trying to say I should measure to the central chassis area of the baneblade which is an extra inch or 2 away. The debate is important to them because then they could put all the flamers out of range. This seems very incorrect to me but the rule book really doesn't define hull or give an example in the pictures so it's just my opinion vs theirs.

From the Warhammer 40,000 Main Rulebook FAQ:

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.

Yeah we read that, but the debate goes on. So would your interpretation be that the wheels and tracks are part of the main body?

Liger404 wrote:
Yeah we read that, but the debate goes on. So would your interpretation be that the wheels and tracks are part of the main body?

Any propulsion system I would consider as a part of the main body of any vehicle, as without the propulsion system the vehicle does not move.

Dunno if this helps, but here's the definition of "hull".

"The main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings"

Going off this, it would not include the tracks (assuming the tracks of a vehicle would be analogous to the masts of a ship).

In the automotive industry, the body of a vehicle refers to the outer casing, excluding the frame, interior components, and the wheels. I feel like this confirms the prior conclusion. Sorry, mate.

The prior conclusion was actually in my favour as I read it. I would be really surprised if things like wheels aren't included. Because with Xeno vehicles who can say which part is the hull and which parts are engines grave plates ect. Surely there is an accepted standard used in tournaments? This can't be the first time this has come up.

I feel like there *should* be a ruling about it somewhere. For now, it's really ambiguous. I would suggest, in this case, the OP just acquiesce to the opponent, then be sure to clear things up before the match in the future. If, at the very least, just to get the game going again.

I have never seen anyone argue the tracks aren't part of the hull... that seems dumb.

It does seem... unusual. However, the opponent (at the very least) IS able to argue it due to differing definitions and GW failing to specify whether or not the tracks/wheels are part of the hull. I probably wouldn't have argued it myself, but can't fault the guy or gal for using ambiguity and lack of precedence to spare himself some pain.

The problem is if I allow it every vehicle will need to have a discussion of which exact part is the hull and which parts are engines, wheels, tracks, grav plates, crew compartments ect. I play with this person often. I just think that would be a bad way for us to play the game. Right now he is playing Tyranids and I have guard. So it doesn't seem so bad. But what about if he starts playing eldar his other favorite? Which part of an eldar grav tank or tau grav tank is the Hull?

Well, I feel like you have three options here.
1) force your opponent to your point of view.
2) concede to your opponent's point of view.
3) call the game as unresolvable and pack it up.

Right now, we have a lack of clarification. Neither side can claim to be "right", only that their way "makes more sense". If you can't come to an agreement on it, then you've reached an unresolvable point in your game. Assuming you cannot get your opponent to back down, you can only choose to agree with them, or call off the game. At least until we can get a ruling that is more concise.

Liger404 wrote:
The problem is if I allow it every vehicle will need to have a discussion of which exact part is the hull and which parts are engines, wheels, tracks, grav plates, crew compartments ect. I play with this person often. I just think that would be a bad way for us to play the game. Right now he is playing Tyranids and I have guard. So it doesn't seem so bad. But what about if he starts playing eldar his other favorite? Which part of an eldar grav tank or tau grav tank is the Hull?

The normal tanks are pretty easy for the eldar. Its the hull itself including the turret and i would say the exhaust..

It gets tricky with wave serpent fins.. they increase the vehicle's footprint by about 1" almost all the way around.

I always agree this beforehand with whomever im playing and let them decide. Its usefull one way, as you get more range and can deploy your troops further away if you count the fins. But its also easier to target and charge you. I personaly lilke to play the fins as hull because to me its part of the model. If opponent is in doubt i recomend tossing a coin...

Thanks for the replies guys. I was hoping it was more black and white than this but it seems this is not the case.

I know I was sort of playing devil's advocate there, but I DO want to mention that I, personally, think anything that isn't "decoration" would be considered part of the hull. Tracks. Wheels. Wings. Guns. Etc. And I think this situation might be why most of the new Ork vehicles have come with a base now. However, there's no clear RAW answer on whether wheels or tracks count as part of the hull, so we can't really help you on that. All we can do is advise you on what the rules say, what definitions you might find to help you make your case, and hope you can appeal to common sense.

The whole problem with this rule is that it relies on you and your opponent are using the most expansive, reasonable definitions. Unless you are doing so someone is gonna start the “that bit doesn’t count” debate and get salty. Before the battle is the best time to run through vehicles, terrain and anything else with possible ambiguity and decide how you’ll be playing. Otherwise mid-game butthurt happens.

FWIW I’d consider tracks and sponsons part of the main body of a Baneblade, but not the tip of an aerial or the end of a sponson Lascannon.

Tbh, however you play it is fine so long as it’s the same for both players. I.e. he has to add an extra 2” to shooting ranges if you have to subtract 2”. Bet he’ll change his tune if you point that out.

Several things brought up so far appear to be in disagreement with the FAQ on this:

"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."

Some significant takeaways include:

I, personally, think anything that isn't "decoration" would be considered part of the hull. Tracks. Wheels. Wings. Guns. Etc.

The turret interestingly does not appear to count

FWIW I’d consider tracks and sponsons part of the main body of a Baneblade

Sponsons interestingly do not appear to count

Its the hull itself including the turret

The turret interestingly does not appear to count

Hull in its Oxford definition: "The main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings."
This is simply the solid 'box' of a craft and would not include tracks as they are just soft linkages running around the wheels, sometimes they are even made of rubber. Wheels themselves would not be part of the 'Hull', been easily replaceable bolt-ons attached to the main body by an axle.

However you could imagine it was translated to tanks in the sense that the hull of a ship is the bit that moves the other stuff around, i.e. the bottom portion.

Aircraft 'Hull' insurances covers the whole plane but aircraft salvage defines 'Hull' as the 'aircraft structure' been the fuselage, wings and tail.

How stuff works uses this definition:
"The hull is the bottom portion of the tank -- the track system and an armored body containing the engine and transmission. The hull's job is to transport the top portion of the tank, the turret, from place to place."

Wiki says:
Hull may refer to:
Chassis of an armored fighting vehicle
Chassis in Wiki means the frame, not the wheels, however you may have a rolling chassis which does include the wheels.

A wiki search of Tank Chassis only shows tanks with wheels and tracks, which may indicate the common understanding is the 'How Stuff Works' definition.

Well worth an FAQ but probably they mean to include the tracks.

The issue with that is, Hull, seems to be the definition of a floating ship (AKA A boat) and as such would have no provision for wheels or tracks.

On a land vehicle the drive system would definitely be considered Hull, as if you destroy that you essentially make the land vehicle useless.

To me chains and wheels of a tank are not part of the hull. The hull is the core of a model, the one part in the middle. Anything that is bolted on (tank : turret, chains, wheels, sponsons, antenna etc.) is not part of the hull. Just like arms and legs are not part of the hull of a walker, like a dreadnought, killa kan, stompa, or even a titan.

 p5freak wrote:
To me chains and wheels of a tank are not part of the hull.

They should be, since anything that moves a land vehicle is an integral part of said vehicle, and as such should be considered hull.

The hull is the core of a model, the one part in the middle. Anything that is bolted on (tank : turret, chains, wheels, sponsons, antenna etc.) is not part of the hull. Just like arms and legs are not part of the hull of a walker, like a dreadnought, killa kan, stompa, or even a titan.

Hull is any essential part of a vehicle...

Arms and legs are absolutely a part of the hull of a walker.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hull is any essential part of a vehicle...

By that logic every part of a vehicle is essential, otherwise it wouldnt be on the vehicle. No one builds vehicles with unessential parts.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Arms and legs are absolutely a part of the hull of a walker.

No, they arent. By that logic the entire walker would be the hull. A hull is only one part (the central one, the inner core) of a vehicle.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Arms and legs are absolutely a part of the hull of a walker.

No, they arent. By that logic the entire walker would be the hull.

And? It's hard for a walker to get around without legs. It's kind of implied with the "walk" part of Walker.

Intuitively I would not consider treads, wheels, legs, etc. part of the hull. They could be ripped off of the vehicle and you would still have a hull, it simply wouldn't go anywhere. For aircraft I would consider wings to be part of the hull of a plane, but not jet engines or the blades of a helicopter. How about the big drill on a termite or hades drill? I would say no.

If everything counts on a tank because “but but the treads are essential bruh like come on man please” then the fins of an eldar wave serpeant are also essential for some reason. We just don’t understand why because Xenos technology. So I would make sure my fins are modeled as far out as they could go to allow me farther shooting ranges. Yay equality! Right guys? Right right?

I think we might see an emergance of vehicle bases to resolve some of the issues. Not sure if the ork ones weve seen are a prelude to whats coming for all or just ork specific but it would kind of make sense.

In regards to walkers I disagree... If my model can only see a walkers leg then surely thats the point I measure to. makes sense as thats probably the thing youd aim for anyway..

Otherwise I cant draw LOS and see the walker as it's s a floating core and its legs dont count??

Arms are a bit trickier so im not sure how I feel about those.

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.

 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.

If I made the call it would be all part of every vehicle counts as hull. Yes even spikes and that jazz. It leaves no room for interpertation wich is the most fair in my oppinion.

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.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hull is any essential part of a vehicle...

By that logic every part of a vehicle is essential.

No, not every part of the vehicle is essential.

The spikes on top are not essential, the sandbags on top are not essential, the banners are not essential etc...

 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.