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 feel as if this is a pretty basic question, but I can't seem to find an answer in the rulebook.

When measuring shooting ranges, do you measure from and to the surface of a model, or the base?

This probably makes the most difference when shooting at flyers - it would be possible to be in range of a flyer's base, but not its hull. Or maybe something huge, like knights - a unit could be in melta range of a knight's base, but not it's hull. Does it get the melta bonus or not in that case?

I know that some models, like wave serpents, specifically say to measure to and from its hull, not is base, because it has a much smaller base than its hull, and would be pretty unfair otherwise.

But what about models that don't have it spelled out, like with wave serpents?

Then you follow the core rules. See 'Tools of War', second paragraph on page 176 of the main rulebook.

EDIT: Wave Serpents have the 'Hover Tank' rule.

Ah, ok, thanks, I thought it was pretty basic. Damned sidebars.

Though, that is a bit odd. I suppose it would be possible for a weapon to be in range of, say, the wing of a dakkajet, but still be out of range of the base. Even in the case of a vehicle with a larger footprint than its base, if you're not in range of the base, you can't shoot?

Correct, if you are not in range of the base you cannot shoot.

But a side note on the wing of the dakka jet: if you are in range of the wing you are likely in range of the base: you are measuring from your model's base to the wing on a higher elevation, so you are measuring along the longest leg of the triangle: height to wing, ground distance to wing, and ground to wing in distance. !_\ it is the \ that you are measuring.

Unless the firing unit is elevated, I suppose. But good to keep in mind, thanks!

That raises a secondary question: Do you measure only the 2 dimensional distance, or all 3? So, if I have a model on a 10" high building, and the same type of model on ground level right below him, is it possible that the one on ground level can be in range of a target of which the model on the upper level is not within range?

 Wehrkind wrote:
That raises a secondary question: Do you measure only the 2 dimensional distance, or all 3? So, if I have a model on a 10" high building, and the same type of model on ground level right below him, is it possible that the one on ground level can be in range of a target of which the model on the upper level is not within range?

You measure in all 3 dimensions, otherwise what would be the point of including rules for vertical coherancy.

Shortest point to shortest point.

So in your example: yes, the models on top of a 10" cliff(buildings are impassible as they are models) or ruin would be out of bolt pistol range to a unit 8" away from the base of the cliff/ruin.

@ Kel - That's interesting. Sort of a strange situation to have your heavy weapons and snipers not necessarily wanting to be in a good high place.
- Do buildings HAVE to be models, or can they just be terrain? I am not talking about the fortifications taken with points, but rather battle field terrain.

@ Imateria - You must be new to 40k Rules that don't have any bearing on related rules, or on the game at all, have historically been fairly common.
Even in this case, it is possible to have rules for vertical coherency to keep you from sending just one guy to the top of a 6" ruin while the rest hang out, without necessarily meaning that every distance is measured in 3 dimensions. Most games in fact don't do that, because it makes the possibility of modeling for advantage too obscene, similarly to why most games have models on bases that are really "the model" as opposed to the representation of the thing itself.

Buildings as Battlefield terrain have this whole grey area about them. Using the scratch built rules to either allow models on top or occupancy with no inbuilt weapons is definitely possible.

Now for Fire-point RAW: your snipers in a bastion have visibility from the top-most of the bastion and measure range from the bottom... So best of Both! Just like and infantry model gathering LOS to a model from behind a defense line, LOS has nothing to do with range measurement. Range is base to base/hull, hull to base/hull, or proxy or base/hull. LOS is from model to model without any(well, many) restrictions; so Your sniper in a bastion can check LOS from the top and range on a linear path.