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.

If you have a model that has guns that extend FAR off the base and a blast template touches the guns but not the base does the blast hit?

Yes, under the current rules any part of the model under the marker is sufficient.

err, that depends (unless Insaniak found something in the rules that I hadnt previously noticed).If its an infantry model, its only hit if some part of its base is under the template. If its a vehicoe then its any part of the model.

7th edition has no requirement for the base to be under the marker. The blast maker rules state that just having part of the base is enough, not that it is required.

A model is hit if it is at least partially under the marker. Part of a gun, or an arm, or a banner, or whatever will qualify for that.

that really sucks for titans that have guns that are near 16" long...

Well, going off these rules:

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.

Then we have a rule that says if you're shooting something you need to be able to see part of the body:

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 penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.

Which IMO implies that to hit a model, you need to touch part of the base, and that if I just have really big banners or a fancy gun you shouldn't penalize me for modeling that way, i.e. if my arm is off the base and you cover just my arm, you don't hit me.

As for vehicles, we have a rule saying:

When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.).

Since firing a lascannon at a vehicle requires that I be able to shoot the hull, I'd say that it also implies that you ignore them for blasts, so that if I model big fancy wings off the back of my dreadnought or have a banner off the back of a tank, you only count the hull itself.

Again, these are separate from the blasts section, but seem to be more specific than the blast rule. I don't know if that's enough to argue the way I'm saying it, but it's HIWPI.

 kingbobbito wrote:

Again, these are separate from the blasts section, but seem to be more specific than the blast rule.

The general rules for establishing LOS are not more specific than the rules that apply to specific types of weapons.

But that's irrelevant anyway, since establishing how many models are under a blast marker has nothing to do with line of sight.

 insaniak wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

Again, these are separate from the blasts section, but seem to be more specific than the blast rule.

The general rules for establishing LOS are not more specific than the rules that apply to specific types of weapons.

But that's irrelevant anyway, since establishing how many models are under a blast marker has nothing to do with line of sight.

I'm going more off the line about not wanting to penalize a model because I decided to have him posing with a gun outstretched, or having banners and whatnot. If we start saying that blasts hit what's not on the base, then we're now saying that modeling so that the entirety of the model is on the base is MFA


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus, when you're placing a blast marker you can't place it so that just a gun barrel is under the center of the template. That gun barrel is not within your line of sight (the rules say a gun barrel can't be used as LoS), and you can't place a blast where you don't have line of sight. If you can't target a model using the gun, why would you be able to hit a model using the gun?

 kingbobbito wrote:

Plus, when you're placing a blast marker you can't place it so that just a gun barrel is under the center of the template. That gun barrel is not within your line of sight (the rules say a gun barrel can't be used as LoS), and you can't place a blast where you don't have line of sight. If you can't target a model using the gun, why would you be able to hit a model using the gun?

Because scatter

 kingbobbito wrote:

I'm going more off the line about not wanting to penalize a model because I decided to have him posing with a gun outstretched, or having banners and whatnot. If we start saying that blasts hit what's not on the base, then we're now saying that modeling so that the entirety of the model is on the base is MFA

Except, again, the rule you're referencing is referring to LOS, not to placing Blasts.

Plus, when you're placing a blast marker you can't place it so that just a gun barrel is under the center of the template. That gun barrel is not within your line of sight (the rules say a gun barrel can't be used as LoS), and you can't place a blast where you don't have line of sight. If you can't target a model using the gun, why would you be able to hit a model using the gun?

You can't place the centre hole over just a gun because the Blast rules specifically require it to be placed over a base.

It still hits anything at least partially under the marker, whether the base is under or not.

The question came up with my phantom titan shooting a unit that got relatively close and the template scattered just enough so that it was touching its own guns... Was just wondering if that couns as a hit because the Phantom Titans guns hang off about 8" from the base...

 Xerics wrote:
The question came up with my phantom titan shooting a unit that got relatively close and the template scattered just enough so that it was touching its own guns... Was just wondering if that couns as a hit because the Phantom Titans guns hang off about 8" from the base...

Yup. Guns count. Sucks, but if you fire a blast close enough, it can easily scatter and hurt yourself. I've had Plasma Cannon shots scatter back onto my own unit before.

So I'll cut all my gun barrels short now, or model them all with their guns pointing straight up in resting poses, scanning for targets, checking an auspex, etc?

Chaos spawn lean way over their bases and have tentacles and spindly bits that go all over the place. You're saying I'm basically able to be hit on a footprint that's way larger than the 40mm base they come with?

Yet I'm allowed to get into btb contact with each other and ignore all of that stuff for movement purposes? Enemies have to stay 1" away from my BASE, not my body, but blasts hit me if they graze my outstretched "fire THAT way!" Devastator sergeant arm?

Nah. Not buying it.

If you have a rules-based argument to the contrary, feel free to make it.

The rules being inconsistent isn't proof that they're being read incorrectly, just proof that the rules are inconsistent.

 insaniak wrote:
The rules being inconsistent isn't proof that they're being read incorrectly, just proof that the rules are inconsistent.

Where rules are inconsistent, you're supposed to agree on a point of consistency with your opponent, as the first section of the rulebook tells you:

Rulebook: so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves

So if it's indeed inconsistent in the rules, you make it so the rules apply evenly to all models, making sure one person doesn't get an advantage because they don't do any custom poses for marines. Rule of cool.

Plus if you don't think "models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on" in one of the most basic sections of the rulebook isn't enough to argue that under no circumstances they matter, I don't know what to say. If I have a model that sticks out of its base all around, does that mean it's impossible for me to count as being in btb contact with something? If you can't draw a line of fire to an outstretched sword, why can blasts count as drawing line of fire to said weapon?

"Models" are only defined by their base. You can have empty bases, or cardboard rectangles for tanks. Anything that sticks out of that base does not count as part of the model, bases are all that matter, to maintain consistency in an inconsistent rulebook. So tell me, do you really think that making all your models fit on the base is MFA, and that you'll just throw a giant middle finger to anyone that actually cares to make their models look good? If so I hope everyone you know models for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can never use the simple excuse "the rules are inconsistent so there's no way to argue this", you make an agreement that is fair for all parties involved. If I play empty bases for marines, that doesn't mean you can't draw line of fire to them if they're behind a wall 1/4 inch high.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The rules being inconsistent isn't proof that they're being read incorrectly, just proof that the rules are inconsistent.

Where rules are inconsistent, you're supposed to agree on a point of consistency with your opponent, as the first section of the rulebook tells you:

Rulebook: so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves

So if it's indeed inconsistent in the rules, you make it so the rules apply evenly to all models, making sure one person doesn't get an advantage because they don't do any custom poses for marines. Rule of cool.

Plus if you don't think "models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on" in one of the most basic sections of the rulebook isn't enough to argue that under no circumstances they matter, I don't know what to say. If I have a model that sticks out of its base all around, does that mean it's impossible for me to count as being in btb contact with something? If you can't draw a line of fire to an outstretched sword, why can blasts count as drawing line of fire to said weapon?

"Models" are only defined by their base. You can have empty bases, or cardboard rectangles for tanks. Anything that sticks out of that base does not count as part of the model, bases are all that matter, to maintain consistency in an inconsistent rulebook. So tell me, do you really think that making all your models fit on the base is MFA, and that you'll just throw a giant middle finger to anyone that actually cares to make their models look good? If so I hope everyone you know models for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can never use the simple excuse "the rules are inconsistent so there's no way to argue this", you make an agreement that is fair for all parties involved. If I play empty bases for marines, that doesn't mean you can't draw line of fire to them if they're behind a wall 1/4 inch high.

The statement that models are only defined by their base is false. As one point of counter-example, the LOS rules care about what's above the base, and not just the base.

I'd suggest house ruling / agreeing with your opponent to only use the base for blasts/templates.
Having a converted / elaborate model that extends beyond the base shouldn't be penalised. Putting effort in to make models look good should always be encouraged.

 Kriswall wrote:
The statement that models are only defined by their base is false. As one point of counter-example, the LOS rules care about what's above the base, and not just the base.

What I was saying was simply from the top down. If we're talking scenarios where we're looking top down, such as assaults reaching btb, for placing the initial blast template, for all measurements for movement and being within an inch of other models. You never count the stuff sticking out from a base for any purpose whatsoever, they're simply ignored.

As for making LOS, keep in mind that it specifically says to ignore weapons, banners, wings, etc when making a check for LOS... further proof that the game wants you to ignore them for all purposes. Is there any scenario in the game that says you base the current position of a model off the sword it's holding outstretched?

 kingbobbito wrote:
So if it's indeed inconsistent in the rules, you make it so the rules apply evenly to all models, making sure one person doesn't get an advantage because they don't do any custom poses for marines. Rule of cool.

Well yes, you are of course free to alter the rules to suit yourself and your opponent.

The discussion here was on what the rules actually are.

You can never use the simple excuse "the rules are inconsistent so there's no way to argue this",

I wasn't using that argument. I was using the argument that 'the rules work like this, and yes, that's inconsistent with how they explain the LOS rules.'

If you would prefer to revert to previous edition rules requiring the model's base to be at least partially under the template in order to maintain that consistency, that's entirely up to you and your opponent. It doesn't change the way the rules actually work in this edition.

 insaniak wrote:
I wasn't using that argument. I was using the argument that 'the rules work like this, and yes, that's inconsistent with how they explain the LOS rules.'

But you haven't proved "the rules work like this"... you've quoted a massively vague section that just says that it hits stuff under the blast. What exactly is the definition of said stuff? The rules merely state

each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker,

What is defined as part of the model? We need some clarification from the rest of the rulebook, because this rule is too vague to say "this is RAW and RAI, there's no arguing it". Well, in every scenario in the rest of the book, a sword isn't part of the model. You don't measure using the sword, or move using the sword, or reach btb using the sword, or draw LoS using the sword. So why would a sword count as "part of a model" when for all intents and purposes the sword is not part of the model in every single circumstance of the game?

Everyone always points out that rules are based on what the book says you specifically can do, and the only time you can do something other than what the general rules say is if there is a specific rule saying otherwise.

Example: You can't assault after disembarking from a vehicle (general). The exception is assault vehicles, as these rules specifically say you can assault out of them (specific).

Now we go to blasts. For shooting, you can't shoot swords (general). Now blasts, a subcategory of shooting... nowhere does it say "swords count as a shootable target" (specific). Blasts follow all the standard rules for shooting, unless there's something I'm missing saying "blasts can shoot things that can't be shot normally" or "blasts can hit swords, wings, banners, etc.", we need to go off the general definition of what can be hit.

To put it in the simplest terms possible: Shooting attacks don't hit swords, blasts are shooting attacks, blasts don't hit swords. Blasts never specifically state they can hit swords.

You need no further definition of model, than that the game uses citadel models. A sword is therefore part of the model. Done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You need no further definition of model, than that the game uses citadel models. A sword is therefore part of the model. Done.

Then why is a sword not treated as part of the model in any circumstance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for that matter, why is there a rule saying swords don't count as a shootable part of the model?

Because otherwise it would be?

It is part of the model, except when defined otherwise. You're turning an exception into the general rule.

 kingbobbito wrote:
But you haven't proved "the rules work like this"... you've quoted a massively vague section that just says that it hits stuff under the blast. What exactly is the definition of said stuff?

In the absence of anything defining the model as anything other than the model, any part of the model under the marker will qualify for counting the model as being partially under the marker.

So why would a sword count as "part of a model" when for all intents and purposes the sword is not part of the model in every single circumstance of the game?

I think you mean 'every single other circumstance in the game.

And the reason the sword doesn't count in those other situations is that the rules specifically say it doesn't count in those specific situations.


Although it's worth pointing out that the sword actually does count when determining if the model is in the way of another model further behind it. This sticky-outy bits don't count for establishing LOS to the model... but no rule says to ignore them when determining LOS past the model.

So you 'every single circumstance of the game' is rapidly becoming 'several other circumstances of the game'...

Now we go to blasts. For shooting, you can't shoot swords (general).

No, for establishing LOS to the model you can't use swords.

For determining whether or not a model is hit by a blast, you hold up the blast marker and see if there is anything at least partially underneath it. This is not establishing LOS... you did that separately, before you pulled out the blast marker.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kingbobbito wrote:
And for that matter, why is there a rule saying swords don't count as a shootable part of the model?

Because without that rule, they would be.

But, again, the rules don't say that the sword is not a 'shootable part of the model'... just that it doesn't count as a part of the model's body for the purposes of establishing LOS to the model.

Checking what is under a blast marker is not establishing LOS to the model.

Even if you equate los to being able to hit. Is it not as simple as "special rule overrides general rule"?

As far as I'm concerned they are not the same thing. But even assuming they are, your arguments still fail