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.

Just curious - current RAW has it done by base for both movement and fire points, but it's very awkward on certain models. Local house rules started just doing it from the hull of the model itself for simplicity sake (ever try to measure from the base on a Vampire Hunter? ) like they do on tanks.

However, this brought up an interesting question earlier: Since GW uses bases for the measurement of fliers regardless of size - and for the purposes of movement the model "is" the base (thus blocking a ground advance of enemy...which is weird). What is stopping me from using a giant base and blocking the charge? The model itself can't be charged except by another FLY model, but could in essence use a large base to block two ground forces from ever impacting - as they couldn't go through it.

I'm sure there is some clarification already done there (modeling for advantage seems to be in play), but was curious.

By RAW, the base is used for all measurements if the model has one.

Since you've got a local house rule that says otherwise, you'll have to discuss this with the people who came up with the rule. I'd suggest that if you're using the hull for measurements regardless of base, then any base is ignored entirely for all rules purposes.

Still an awkward ruling, but there's a reason GW wants to use the base for everything.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Still an awkward ruling, but there's a reason GW wants to use the base for everything.

Right -- but since there is no actual deceleration on what a base size is (historically - the rule of cool), then couldn't one model for advantage? We'd never to do it here, but turning loose a bunch of engineers to bend the rules may generate some hilarious ideas

 Cheexsta wrote:
By RAW, the base is used for all measurements if the model has one.

Note that some vehicles (e.g., the Eldar Falcon, Dark Eldar Raider, etc.) say that distance and ranges are always measured to and from this model’s hull even though it has a base, however I don't believe any 'Flyers' have that wording.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
By RAW, the base is used for all measurements if the model has one.

Note that some vehicles (e.g., the Eldar Falcon, Dark Eldar Raider, etc.) say that distance and ranges are always measured to and from this model’s hull even though it has a base, however I don't believe any 'Flyers' have that wording.

Correct - if it Hovers (keyword) then you measure from the model, not base.

In that scenario, and a tank (which has no base), we can essentially state that base diameter = model diameter. It' invisible, but would be the same thing if it was there. As such, I could make a base that followed the same measurements of a flier and still be measuring "from the base", even though it's essentially the hull.

Another fun one - I can place 2 Voidraven bombers touching nose to nose, and still be 7" from base to base. Gets a little more complicated if I wanted to end my flying move on that spot, but could not physically place the model due to the other plane being there (but it's base is cleared fine). Yaaaay hehehe

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Correct - if it Hovers (keyword) then you measure from the model, not base.

Nope. It's an ability instead of a keyword, and its not always named the same. For the Eldar its 'Hover Tank', while for the Dark Eldar and Necrons its 'Hovering'.

 ncshooter426 wrote:
However, this brought up an interesting question earlier: Since GW uses bases for the measurement of fliers regardless of size - and for the purposes of movement the model "is" the base (thus blocking a ground advance of enemy...which is weird). What is stopping me from using a giant base and blocking the charge? The model itself can't be charged except by another FLY model, but could in essence use a large base to block two ground forces from ever impacting - as they couldn't go through it.

I'm sure there is some clarification already done there (modeling for advantage seems to be in play), but was curious.

Is there a section in the rules that allows me to use different base sizes than those provided with the Games Workshop kit (hint: there isn't)?

You can't do things the rules don't allow you to do, and since the rules don't specify using anything other than the models GW sells, they are naturally assuming that you're using the models as GW sells them.

 Ghaz wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Correct - if it Hovers (keyword) then you measure from the model, not base.

Nope. It's an ability instead of a keyword, and its not always named the same. For the Eldar its 'Hover Tank', while for the Dark Eldar and Necrons its 'Hovering'.

Whatever - you understand that there is something that explicitly allows them to do X and written for vehicles that hover. Same same -- I didn't have the book handy for the word


Note: This came across as harsh, which wasn't my intent to any party in the discussion. Fixed some of the wording

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
However, this brought up an interesting question earlier: Since GW uses bases for the measurement of fliers regardless of size - and for the purposes of movement the model "is" the base (thus blocking a ground advance of enemy...which is weird). What is stopping me from using a giant base and blocking the charge? The model itself can't be charged except by another FLY model, but could in essence use a large base to block two ground forces from ever impacting - as they couldn't go through it.

I'm sure there is some clarification already done there (modeling for advantage seems to be in play), but was curious.

Is there a section in the rules that allows me to use different base sizes than those provided with the Games Workshop kit (hint: there isn't)?

There isn't a deceleration anywhere about official base sizes, there never has been. You do realize base sizes change, and not all items actually had bases yeah? Or - shocker I know - Some models don't even have bases (cough forgeworld cough).

You can't do things the rules don't allow you to do, and since the rules don't specify using anything other than the models GW sells, they are naturally assuming that you're using the models as GW sells them.

Except there are no rules that match anything you have outlined. Please, provide documentation as currently you're using the word "assumption" when discussing rules. That gak doesn't work - that is the entire purpose of having documentation.

The entire purpose of staying within the normal bounds is for continuity purposes, yet GW has repeatedly stated that the base size is irrelevant. If we're sticking with the whole "what it came with" mantra, then it opens up a whole slew of ancillary issues - such as the oddball movement issue. For other models like the Vampire which has no official base - but cannot physically be placed on a 120mm oval - it gets even trickier.

The entire point of this was to nail down that

1) There are no explicit base size min/max rules - which itself is sort of weird. AoS deals with this by model measurement, and rule of cool for bases
2) The base rules on fliers presents both mechanical and logistical issues on the field.

Everything else is just fun theorycraft on how rules can be pushed to extreme ends when there is no bounds clearly defined.



Moar fun stuff:

"Q: What are the official rules regarding specific base sizes for
specific models (if any)?
A: The rules assume that models are mounted on the
base they are supplied with, but it’s entirely fine to
mount them on whichever base you think is appropriate.
Sometimes, a player may have models in their collection
on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t
supplied with a base at all. In these cases you should
always feel free to mount the model on a base of
appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar
type as guidance"

Basic base size of similar nature is applicable, but will vary depending on the state of the game. Ah, but another fun bit (from the older rev)

"Q: Do a Flyer’s wings and tail count as part of its hull? (e.g. If
you can only see a wing can you shoot at it? If you are only in
range of the wing can you shoot at or charge it? When hovering,
can the wing get you Linebreaker if it is within 12" of the
board edge?)
A: Yes, a Flyer’s wings and tail are considered part of the
hull in all respects"

While we don't use the same mechanics in 8E any longer, some parts of this are still relevant (ie: what exactly is a 'model')

So let's consider this for a moment ...
If a flyer is essentially represented by it's base for all measurement purposes, how would you resolve the following scenario:

Model is parked behind some tall, LOS blocking structure the width of the base. The wings of the aircraft are sticking out of either side (think of a fat kid hiding behind the tree). Would you consider this model as visible or not, if you were looking dead at it head on?

Yes. That is how los works. Raw.

If I can see any part of your model (hull) I can shoot it.

Now if I am in range to attack or not is different. My weapon might not reach your base but could reach your nose. Or tail. Which doesn't matter.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Yes. That is how los works. Raw.

If I can see any part of your model (hull) I can shoot it.

Now if I am in range to attack or not is different. My weapon might not reach your base but could reach your nose. Or tail. Which doesn't matter.

Edit: This addresses the range resolution mechanic, not the visibility part - which is a byproduct of the footprint discussion. I read your initial response as "I can shoot your nose"
--
That is inherently at odds with itself. All measurements are made to the base. If the base is is blocked, then the model is blocked - as the model *IS* the base for all intents and purposes. What you see floating in space above it is just the eye candy used to represent the black oval.

You cannot draw a line to the base, despite seeing it's wings. You cannot resolve any shots against it, even though you physically see it. Due to the fact that exposed bits for vehicles are used for measurements, but (unless otherwise stated) do not apply to based elements.

Let's assume a tank, which has no base, matches the same footprint as our black oval of doom. It's sitting behind the same location, in exactly the same position. It is completely obscured, as was the base in our previous example.

Both items displace the same amount
Both items would be measured from the exact same point (in this example) in terms of calculating distance.

You cannot reconcile one as resolvable, but the other not - if we declare the displacement area as the model. If we declare the visible part of the vehicle as being the model - which makes sense - then you can resolve one as visible and the other not.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Yes. That is how los works. Raw.

If I can see any part of your model (hull) I can shoot it.

Now if I am in range to attack or not is different. My weapon might not reach your base but could reach your nose. Or tail. Which doesn't matter.

Edit: This addresses the range resolution mechanic, not the visibility part - which is a byproduct of the footprint discussion. I read your initial response as "I can shoot your nose"
--
That is inherently at odds with itself. All measurements are made to the base. If the base is is blocked, then the model is blocked - as the model *IS* the base for all intents and purposes. What you see floating in space above it is just the eye candy used to represent the black oval.

You cannot draw a line to the base, despite seeing it's wings. You cannot resolve any shots against it, even though you physically see it. Due to the fact that exposed bits for vehicles are used for measurements, but (unless otherwise stated) do not apply to based elements.

Let's assume a tank, which has no base, matches the same footprint as our black oval of doom. It's sitting behind the same location, in exactly the same position. It is completely obscured, as was the base in our previous example.

Both items displace the same amount
Both items would be measured from the exact same point (in this example) in terms of calculating distance.

You cannot reconcile one as resolvable, but the other not - if we declare the displacement area as the model. If we declare the visible part of the vehicle as being the model - which makes sense - then you can resolve one as visible and the other not.

It seems like you guys are going off the rails.

When it comes to measuring range (not checking visibility) you always measure to a model's base, not its hull, unless it isn't on a base or has an ability that says otherwise. So in the case of a flyer, when measuring RANGE, you measure to the flyer's base, regardless of whether or not you firing model can visibly see the base or not.

When it comes to checking visibility, you just have to be able to see any part of the model to fire at it, regardless of whether or not the part you can see is within range of your attack or not. So when checking visibility to fire at a flyer, you look to see if you can see ANY part of the model and if you can see any of that model then it is considered visible to the firing model.

Measuring to a base you cannot see, while also compensating for blocking terrain, is a really unnecessary step. I thought this was the new and improved, superfast9000 gameplay

"I can see a wing!"
"Ok, shoot the wing"

Tapemeasure.exe

"Pew pew pew!"


See how much easier that is? Base measurement on a flying model sucks. It gets super suck with 5 of those bastards on the field :(

If it makes you feel any better they will never have cover

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
If it makes you feel any better they will never have cover

True dat

It's just so weird trying to reconcile base origin inputs on something that doesn't actually occupy the space in question. The base is there so we can actually have the model stand up - but it occupies the airspace 7" above it. Having a charging unit blocked by a fracking airplane is just short circuit material