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.

I recall first clocking these issues in AoS, which was the progenitor of the "bases don't matter, measure to any part of the model" idea. And it was part of the reason I lost interest in AoS after 2-3 attempts.

Measuring shooting LoS to and from weapons, wings, ornaments, etc. is one thing, but where the system really seems to break down is in close combat. With shooting measurements the distance between the firer and the target will always remain consistent, and will be equivalent whether Model A is drawing sight to Model B, or Model B is drawing sight to Model A.

But measuring for close combat quickly turns into an epic cluster****

Here's an example that came up tonight, in my first game of 8th:

Some tunneling Hormagaunts entered play in the vicinity of a Knight. They needed to be 9"+ away to legally deploy. But the Knight has a cannon jutting out about 3" beyond the area of its base, at a height of about 5" above the table. That cannon was the foremost physical portion of the Knight, so it was what the Hormagaunts needed to measure against for deployment. But since the cannon is so high up and the gaunts are so short, when it comes time for the Hormagaunts to measure charge distance they are no longer measuring to the cannon, but to the parts of the Knight closest to the ground. So what should have been a 10" charge by the spirit of the rules actually ends up being something like a 13" charge.

I'm a big proponent of equivalence in games (ie. if I can see you, you can see me, if I can hit you at 5.5" you can hit me at 5.5" so this whole design element is abhorrent to me.

It ends up being massively more complicated than just measuring to bases, because it forces an unintuitive consideration of the 3D spaces models occupy into the game.

It complicates the execution of movement, because pivoting can no longer be considered "free" on a highly-asymmetrical model.

You can generate plenty of weird, highly-specific situations where parts of models intermingle with parts of other models in stupid ways. Imagine a bow-legged infantry unit sitting dead centre on an objective, and an enemy model sitting further away from the objective but wielding a drooping rifle/spear/tentacle that rests its tip between the legs of the objective-camper. I guess the appendage poker claims the title of "closest", then?

And what gets my goat the most is that I doubt most gamers (or even the designers!) are cognizant of these issues, or actively obeying the letter of the rules in their games. There have been s o many years of bases actually mattering that people slip into old (and, I'd argue, sensible) habits of using bases to judge positioning. Immediately after my depressing turn of Hormagaunt-jockeying ended the Knight player casually performed a technically-illegal movement that brought its base 1.1" away from the tunneling delivery Trygon while the tip of its phallo-cannon was millimetres away from the closest portion of the Trygon, kissing it gently on its snaggled snout.

The RAW are pretty clear, so I'm not really looking for outs. More like venting / hoping for a groundswell of disillusionment that forces GW to address the gaping holes in their rulesets regarding verticality.

Isn't it pretty clear that all distances are measured from base to base? First page of the core rule under "Tools of war"

Battle Primer, Page 2, "Tools of War":

Distances in Warhammer
40,000 are measured in
inches (") between the
closest points of the bases
of the models you’re
measuring to and from. If
a model does not have a
base, such is the case with
many vehicles, measure to
and from the closest point
of that model’s hull instead.
You can measure distances
whenever you wish.

Oh my god.

You guys just picked up my spirits!

Yeah, that silliness didn't make it over to 40k. It was a well intentioned rule designed more than anything to make the old WFB players feel like they didn't have to re base everything that ironically was more clunky to use than square bases in a skirmish game. That and random initiative are the two notable changes in the core rules.

My issue with this is the Ravenwing darkshroud. It has an aura effect of 6" but the model is far bigger than it's base, so this really comes down to about a 4-5" aura. I'm going to use an oval large base that matches the model more as it just doesn't seem right on the tiny clear circular base. The aura really should measure from the hull.

 bullyboy wrote:
My issue with this is the Ravenwing darkshroud. It has an aura effect of 6" but the model is far bigger than it's base, so this really comes down to about a 4-5" aura. I'm going to use an oval large base that matches the model more as it just doesn't seem right on the tiny clear circular base. The aura really should measure from the hull.

That ought to have a rule stating that measurements go to/from its hull, as similar Eldar units do. Check its datasheet.

 bullyboy wrote:
My issue with this is the Ravenwing darkshroud. It has an aura effect of 6" but the model is far bigger than it's base, so this really comes down to about a 4-5" aura. I'm going to use an oval large base that matches the model more as it just doesn't seem right on the tiny clear circular base. The aura really should measure from the hull.

IOW, textbook MFA. Why do you think that this is an acceptable thing to do?

 Selym wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
My issue with this is the Ravenwing darkshroud. It has an aura effect of 6" but the model is far bigger than it's base, so this really comes down to about a 4-5" aura. I'm going to use an oval large base that matches the model more as it just doesn't seem right on the tiny clear circular base. The aura really should measure from the hull.

That ought to have a rule stating that measurements go to/from its hull, as similar Eldar units do. Check its datasheet.

it doesn't, but probably should

You need to keep in mind that you measure distances between closest points. Not projections. You also need to be within 1' of the closest point to engage in combat. So, unless he precicely measures the cannon to be more than 1' from the hight of your models, while still sticking forward, he's very unlikely to recieve any meaningful advantages.

The problem to begin with is the Rulebook itself.

Whoever at GW thought it was a good idea to put IMPORTANT rules on the sidebars is just *place very bad words here*...

#baselivesmatter

You had me a bit confused because I could have sworn I read that it was to the base and to the hull if no base is available.

Measuring to the nearest point makes absolutely no sense at all. The enemy inst going to be shooting at the tip of your gun to kill you, they want center mass.

Himmelweiss wrote:
The problem to begin with is the Rulebook itself.

Whoever at GW thought it was a good idea to put IMPORTANT rules on the sidebars is just *place very bad words here*...

7

This was a comment that Matt from Miniwargamming made and I just didn't understand it. I think the rules layout is great. I suppose I just read what was on the page.

 Hollow wrote:

Himmelweiss wrote:
The problem to begin with is the Rulebook itself.

Whoever at GW thought it was a good idea to put IMPORTANT rules on the sidebars is just *place very bad words here*...

7

This was a comment that Matt from Miniwargamming made and I just didn't understand it. I think the rules layout is great. I suppose I just read what was on the page.

I thought it was weird. It just doesn't feel right to have to jump around the page to find information, that's just not how we read. If they had a reference to the sidebars in the main body of the text it would be a much easier read. As it's written if you just read through the main body, thinking that the sidebars are fluff, then you will miss out on a number of rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
My issue with this is the Ravenwing darkshroud. It has an aura effect of 6" but the model is far bigger than it's base, so this really comes down to about a 4-5" aura. I'm going to use an oval large base that matches the model more as it just doesn't seem right on the tiny clear circular base. The aura really should measure from the hull.

IOW, textbook MFA. Why do you think that this is an acceptable thing to do?

Because it's honestly too similar to modelling for simplicity to split hairs over, if he showed up with that model on a different base I wouldn't give a damn, my Inceptors are all on modded bases because they fall off those stupid clear stalks or break off, I know a couple of Tyrannids players who have carved spikes off their models and changed the size, the size change was the end result of getting fed up with the spines breaking off, catching in foam, catching on terrain, catching on allied models, catching on enemy models.

If Bullyboy hadn't told the aura story and most people saw it they wouldn't think twice about it.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
If Bullyboy hadn't told the aura story and most people saw it they wouldn't think twice about it.

But he did tell the story, and that's all there is to it. He's explicitly increasing the size of the model's base because he wants a larger area for the AoE buff, which is textbook MFA and cheating. And even if it was done for purely aesthetic reasons I would expect to measure range from the original base dimensions and not take advantage of the larger base size.

The layout is both good and bad.

The core, basic functionality, of the rules as they apply to every unit are in the main paragraphs. Any outliers and clarification notation rules are in the margins or box-outs.

That was the good in the layout.

The bad 2-fold
1) That is not how most English readers read things; so you get even more claims of missing/crummy rules because some or all of a sidebar/box-out was ignored.
2) there are so many common special circumstances and needs for clarification that some of those sidebars are not on the page to which they directly pertain.

Genesaika wrote:
You had me a bit confused because I could have sworn I read that it was to the base and to the hull if no base is available.

Measuring to the nearest point makes absolutely no sense at all. The enemy inst going to be shooting at the tip of your gun to kill you, they want center mass.

*Ahem*

 Selym wrote:
Battle Primer, Page 2, "Tools of War":

Distances in Warhammer 40,000 are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

Pretty certain that aesthetic protrusions from the models don't count for LOS such as wings, tails, banners, special cute guns etc... that way modelers aren't penalized for decorations. Did they do away with that foe eighth? IE a tank can't draw a los from its antenna (the only part showing from behind terrain) to shoot at enemy nor can enemy use that to shoot the tank.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Pretty certain that aesthetic protrusions from the models don't count for LOS such as wings, tails, banners, special cute guns etc... that way modelers aren't penalized for decorations. Did they do away with that foe eighth? IE a tank can't draw a los from its antenna (the only part showing from behind terrain) to shoot at enemy nor can enemy use that to shoot the tank.

This is my understanding as well. Antennas and banners and what not don't count for LOS. I am not sure if this is actually in the rulebook though.

verticalgain wrote:

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Pretty certain that aesthetic protrusions from the models don't count for LOS such as wings, tails, banners, special cute guns etc... that way modelers aren't penalized for decorations. Did they do away with that foe eighth? IE a tank can't draw a los from its antenna (the only part showing from behind terrain) to shoot at enemy nor can enemy use that to shoot the tank.

This is my understanding as well. Antennas and banners and what not don't count for LOS. I am not sure if this is actually in the rulebook though.

It's not in the Batlte Primer, that's for damn certain :-/

Just imagine a TFG slapping a length of sprue to the front of a tank and calling it a ram of some sort, just to be able to snipe around corners. Really, tanks and MC's should be firing from the gun and it's logical movement arc, not bits of the hull or antennae.

 Selym wrote:

Just imagine a TFG slapping a length of sprue to the front of a tank and calling it a ram of some sort, just to be able to snipe around corners. Really, tanks and MC's should be firing from the gun and it's logical movement arc, not bits of the hull or antennae.

measuring from the gun won't solve the problem (there are easy extensions to keep the tank in firing range but it's hull out of sight)

They just should have Bases
We are not back in 5th edition were everything large had no Base because GW's largest one was 65mm round
Now we have official oval ones that can carry a Land Raider

Would have been no problem to write in the book that everything can/should have a base (than the "ram" looking around the rock would not count if the base of the tank is still behind)

 kodos wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Just imagine a TFG slapping a length of sprue to the front of a tank and calling it a ram of some sort, just to be able to snipe around corners. Really, tanks and MC's should be firing from the gun and it's logical movement arc, not bits of the hull or antennae.

measuring from the gun won't solve the problem (there are easy extensions to keep the tank in firing range but it's hull out of sight)

They just should have Bases
We are not back in 5th edition were everything large had no Base because GW's largest one was 65mm round
Now we have official oval ones that can carry a Land Raider

Would have been no problem to write in the book that everything can/should have a base (than the "ram" looking around the rock would not count if the base of the tank is still behind)

Based on the Primaris grav tank coming out soon, that may not be too far-fetched.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure in the future all vehicles will have bases.

and special rules that they measure from the hull and not from the base

And a failure by GW to consider that antennae are not hull components

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
If Bullyboy hadn't told the aura story and most people saw it they wouldn't think twice about it.

But he did tell the story, and that's all there is to it. He's explicitly increasing the size of the model's base because he wants a larger area for the AoE buff, which is textbook MFA and cheating. And even if it was done for purely aesthetic reasons I would expect to measure range from the original base dimensions and not take advantage of the larger base size.

That's less distance between his model and a shooting attack, less distance between his model and a charge, a base that gives him less ability to press against the board edge, a model that struggles to balance on most terrain and a model that can't take the high ground in a number of buildings.
There's plenty of things to lose by making the base bigger.

GW FAQ wrote:Core Rules Questions
Q. If a Vehicle model has a base, but it is itself larger
than the base (such as a Stormraven Gunship), what do
I measure to – the base or the hull of the vehicle?
A. Unless such a model’s datasheet has an ability saying
otherwise, you measure to and from the model’s base.

Solved guys. Using a bigger base is modeling for advantage.

 Galas wrote:

GW FAQ wrote:Core Rules Questions
Q. If a Vehicle model has a base, but it is itself larger
than the base (such as a Stormraven Gunship), what do
I measure to – the base or the hull of the vehicle?
A. Unless such a model’s datasheet has an ability saying
otherwise, you measure to and from the model’s base.

Solved guys. Using a bigger base is modeling for advantage.

That really screws the rule for the darkshround with the base provided. Typical GW. The front hull extends 1.5" beyond the base, and the rear wings 2" beyond the base which is actually making the aura effect either 4.5" or 4" in effect as you can't get models that close.

Now, there is nothing stopping me from using a larger mounting post so that models could actually be placed beneath the shroud model itself but not on the models base and that is probably what I will do. What really sucks is that I just bought 3 boxes of the Imperium Sector bases to base my RW. I will have practically zero use for all of the larger oval bases now, quite a waste of money.