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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Stux wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
It's funny how the players from no other rule sets never seem to ever have this issue.
Yet I've never seen a ruleset define what is or is not a model.
Then you go over to the 40k player base and they seem to be divided over everything.
Even how many sides a D6 has or what constitutes a tape measure.
It's quite hilarious to watch.

Other games I've played it's been unambiguous, unlike in current 40k.

Malifaux for instance does all line of sight and measuring from the base, the model is purely decorative. I quite like that as a system because it gives the players freedom to convert however they like and not be accused of modelling for advantage or whatever!

And Malifaux only has minor terrain on a 3x3 (or is it 4x4) and very little shooting, try putting hufe LoS buildings, ruins and play on a 6x6 with 100 models where 80 of them shoots, come back and tell me how well those rules are now.

I never said you could just port those rules in, that would obviously be ridiculous. I was responding to the claim that this isn't an issue in other games by showing that maybe that's because of the rulesets of other games, not because of anything inherently different about the 40k community.

40k is suppose to be LoS to models for many reasons.

The model is whatever you built/glue/based/move/placed on the table, yes this includes the base unless otherwise stated (Hover stats you dont use the base), so yes the base is part of the model.

In your opinion. Nowhere in the rules does it say base is part of the model for rules purposes.

Stux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Stux wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
It's funny how the players from no other rule sets never seem to ever have this issue.
Yet I've never seen a ruleset define what is or is not a model.
Then you go over to the 40k player base and they seem to be divided over everything.
Even how many sides a D6 has or what constitutes a tape measure.
It's quite hilarious to watch.

Other games I've played it's been unambiguous, unlike in current 40k.

Malifaux for instance does all line of sight and measuring from the base, the model is purely decorative. I quite like that as a system because it gives the players freedom to convert however they like and not be accused of modelling for advantage or whatever!

And Malifaux only has minor terrain on a 3x3 (or is it 4x4) and very little shooting, try putting hufe LoS buildings, ruins and play on a 6x6 with 100 models where 80 of them shoots, come back and tell me how well those rules are now.

I never said you could just port those rules in, that would obviously be ridiculous. I was responding to the claim that this isn't an issue in other games by showing that maybe that's because of the rulesets of other games, not because of anything inherently different about the 40k community.

40k is suppose to be LoS to models for many reasons.

The model is whatever you built/glue/based/move/placed on the table, yes this includes the base unless otherwise stated (Hover stats you dont use the base), so yes the base is part of the model.

In your opinion. Nowhere in the rules does it say base is part of the model for rules purposes.

I was showing how 40k is harder on rules b.c of situations that 40k has.

And we dont need to know if the base is a model or not, the rules are 100% clear you can use it to measure with (literally he 1st rule in the BRB) so why is this even a question?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Stux wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
It's funny how the players from no other rule sets never seem to ever have this issue.
Yet I've never seen a ruleset define what is or is not a model.
Then you go over to the 40k player base and they seem to be divided over everything.
Even how many sides a D6 has or what constitutes a tape measure.
It's quite hilarious to watch.

Other games I've played it's been unambiguous, unlike in current 40k.

Malifaux for instance does all line of sight and measuring from the base, the model is purely decorative. I quite like that as a system because it gives the players freedom to convert however they like and not be accused of modelling for advantage or whatever!

And Malifaux only has minor terrain on a 3x3 (or is it 4x4) and very little shooting, try putting hufe LoS buildings, ruins and play on a 6x6 with 100 models where 80 of them shoots, come back and tell me how well those rules are now.

I never said you could just port those rules in, that would obviously be ridiculous. I was responding to the claim that this isn't an issue in other games by showing that maybe that's because of the rulesets of other games, not because of anything inherently different about the 40k community.

40k is suppose to be LoS to models for many reasons.

The model is whatever you built/glue/based/move/placed on the table, yes this includes the base unless otherwise stated (Hover stats you dont use the base), so yes the base is part of the model.

In your opinion. Nowhere in the rules does it say base is part of the model for rules purposes.

I was showing how 40k is harder on rules b.c of situations that 40k has.

And we dont need to know if the base is a model or not, the rules are 100% clear you can use it to measure with (literally he 1st rule in the BRB) so why is this even a question?

It's clear on measuring. Not on line of sight. Some people are arguing if all you can see is base then you can shoot at the model. Others are saying as the rules don't assert that the base is part of the model then seeing the base is not enough.