Is a model in a transport in "base contact" with it?

[GTang]

There's nothing saying a passenger model is in B2B with its transport, and some theories as to why it wouldn't be. While the distance between the two may be 0", in this case that still doesn't mean the bases are in contact. Base to base - if you can't see it, it's not.

 

Does a model in a Land Raider need to move out of it to assault?

[nighthawks]

a model in a Land Raider need to move out of it to assault?

This is the scenario in which base to base is most often used. While arguments regarding the model being at 0" range while being transported (a strained argument at best) base to base is generally used in assault. As you cannot assault a model within a transport, there must be more to the 0" than it seems.

 

Base to base is well defined, at least in context, to mean two models touching bases / hulls on the tabletop. There is no other situation where models are said to be in base to base, thus we can assume that the tech marine would need to follow the same convention.

 

The gist of the thing is that repair whilst embarked is generally seen (as in, most people find it obvious) to be illegal. The tm must exit and then make the repairs. Do not discuss intent, do not justigy with fluff. It is what it is. Have fun with the game, don't loose sight of that.

[Agrab]

There's nothing saying a passenger model is in B2B with its transport, and some theories as to why it wouldn't be. While the distance between the two may be 0", in this case that still doesn't mean the bases are in contact. Base to base - if you can't see it, it's not.

 

Does a model in a Land Raider need to move out of it to assault?

 

no, but it is saying that he is inside of the model. If he is in, then his base must be touching the base of the model (unless he is upsidedown)

 

that said, as you can not assault through another model, or come within an inch of one you are not assulting, your counter example fails

[GTang]

The theory is, because it counts as 0" away from the vehicle's hull (base), it counts as being in base to base contact with it.

 

Fine. Let's go with the theory.

 

A model with a melta bomb attacks a Land Raider containing a bunch of marines. The model misses. For whatever reason, the player of the Land Raider does not move it. Are the passengers in base to base contact with the melta bomb model? They are all within 0" of another. If it is in base to base, how are the passengers able to move away from base to base - using the vehicle's access point, for example (which means exiting at least 1" away from the enemy model) - to get back into base to base with the enemy as an assault move? If you're in B2B in assault, you're locked. And then there's the completely new area of whether and what to do with locked passenger models in assault.

 

So, the easiest way to resolve it is to say that the passengers can be 0" away and not be in base to base contact with its vehicle, at least by the rules of 40k.

[gdeathlegion]

I would say that he is in B2B, and would treat it as such

 

1) we allow shooting and psychic powers from inside a model as though they were there.

2) where a model is specifically doesnt always matter. He is said to be in the tank, even if we have him off the table (otherwise, see the problem with 1)

 

If an enemy unit charges a rhino, do the models inside get to strike back at the enemy unit? If the models inside were base to base with the rhino, wouldn't they get to attack as well? This isn't RAI or RAW, it's just good old vulcan logic.

 

I believe a tech-marine has to be outside a vehicle to fix it.

[Agrab]

I can be in base-to-base with my own models without you being able to assault me, so the condition both of you are arguing is irrelevant

 

say i line up a row of marines, and one behind that. You can assault the first row, not the second, yet i am in B2B

[gdeathlegion]

I can be in base-to-base with my own models without you being able to assault me, so the condition both of you are arguing is irrelevant

 

say i line up a row of marines, and one behind that. You can assault the first row, not the second, yet i am in B2B

 

What are you talking about? Please clarify.

[Agrab]

I can be in base-to-base with my own models without you being able to assault me, so the condition both of you are arguing is irrelevant

 

say i line up a row of marines, and one behind that. You can assault the first row, not the second, yet i am in B2B

 

What are you talking about? Please clarify.

okay, the commen reasoning against my position (in B2B) is that you could not assault the marine through the tank

my response is that in a real situation (two squads lined up touching), you can still only assault one, counitering it

[gibbro]

All distances in 40K are measured in inches to and from the bases of models in most (not all cases). The rules are clear about this (pg 3 BRB) "A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as you reference points." B2B is a measurement between two models just like everything else in this game. It has no other special rules or guidelines. The reference is from one base to the other base is either touching, 1", 6", 12", 372" or any distance. This fact does not change. If I say 0" or B2B it is the same distance. If I say 1 foot or 12 inches it is the same distance.

 

The repair ability calls for a measured distance of B2B. It is a distance the same as 6" to assault or 12" to shoot or any other distance. But since the Techmarine is inside the transport this distance doesn't exist. But everything about embarking a unit is rule breaking which is why there are special rules on pg 66 and 67 regarding, shooting, moving, entering and leaving a vehicle. There is also a special rule on measuring distance the same as the rest. No one argues that you can't shoot from a fire point becasue the model isn't on the table, there is a rule. There is rule for this too.

 

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." pg 66 BRB

 

So if the model occupies the area of it's base (or hull) {as per pg 3 BRB} the embarked unit's base is the hull of the transport. The base of the transport is the hull of the transport. This is the distance measured. The distance between the hull of the transport (embarked unit) {pg 66 BRB} and the hull of the transport (transport) is B2B. I have measured from two different models and have found their distance to satisfy all rules set forth in the BRB and codex to repair the vehicle.

 

If the Techmarine really isn't suppose to be able to repair from inside or not, doesn't matter to me. But a question was asked and after reading the rules I don't see why not. The reasons against it are lesser than what the rules say. I don't think a model with Eternal Warrior should be able to shrug off a strength "D" hit in apoc, but rules are rules. There are rules for measuring distance for models on the table and embarked. There are rules for measuring distance of abilities. The rule on pg 66 seems to allow repair from inside the vehicle. Maybe someone could talk about that. I have debunked every arguement against not repairing inside the vehicle. I would appreciate a well thought out rebuttal from the other camp. Please, shed new light on your opinion. I need to be able to see your side clearer. Right or wrong I feel I have a stronger case.

[GTang]

I can be in base-to-base with my own models without you being able to assault me, so the condition both of you are arguing is irrelevant

There's no intervening row of models. You're in B2B with the enemy model in my example. That's the main problem.

[Agrab]

I can be in base-to-base with my own models without you being able to assault me, so the condition both of you are arguing is irrelevant

There's no intervening row of models. You're in B2B with the enemy model in my example. That's the main problem.

 

how so

[SeattleDV8]

Sorry unless the techmarines base is touching the vehicles base you are not allowed to repair the vehicle. Being 0" away is not the same as being base to base.

[Agrab]

Sorry unless the techmarines base is touching the vehicles base you are not allowed to repair the vehicle. Being 0" away is not the same as being base to base.

 

and how is being in something, short of standing upside down, not touching its base with yours?

[gibbro]

Does a model in a Land Raider need to move out of it to assault?

Thankyou GTang. This would be the glaring hole in the theory of a Techmarine being able to repair a vehicle from the inside. Observe

 

In order to meaure the distance of the embarked Tech to the Transport using the embarked measuring rule on pg 66, you would measure from the Hull (tech) to the Hull (transport). These two points are a distance of B2B away, which would satisfy the rules for a repair.

 

For a unit assaulting they can only assault the transport because it is between them and the Tech, so the Tech is safe and the vehicle will not be locked in combat.

 

However, in the following SM assault phase, assuming the vehicle has not moved one could argue that the Tech could assault from inside the vehicle using the same rule on pg 66. The distance from the hull (Tech) to the base of the assaulters is B2B. This is not allowed, but it never says a unit can't assault from inside a vehicle specifically, but there are numerous rules regarding disembarking and assaulting, so there is collusion to support you can't assault from inside.

 

So you have to accept that you can't assault from inside a vehicle because you are unable to come in B2B with the target. Meaning that although you can measure from the hull for the embarked unit it doesn't count as the base for the embarked unit. If it isn't the base then no B2B contact can be established.

 

The only argument left is that Base in Base counts as B2B, but the not being able to assault will still apply.

 

Theory Debunked.

[Vincent Black Shadow]

If I'm a space marine sitting on the little bench in the rhino and my bolter goes off because I forgot to say the "engage safety" prayers, and hits some control panel, the techmarine could probably fix that from inside the vehicle.

 

But anything that's immobilizing a vehicle or destroying a vehicle is shooting at it from the outside. Thus you have to disembark to reach the outside. Then the techmarine and his servitor buddies can stand over the open rhino engine with a couple sacrificial beers saying the "i bet it's the alternator" benediction and the "could be a fuse" devotion. Then they perform the rites of "okay, try turning the key again" until the omnissiah looks favorably upon them.

[Isiah]

That's very entertaining Vincent Black Shadow... yep there's nothing worse than alternator troubles :D.

 

Even so don't confuse fluff with rules. There are no rules that state immobilising is due specifically to a fault on the outside (or the inside for that matter) – a vehicle just becomes immobilised for whatever reason and that's it. But really it has no bearing on the Techie B2B issue.

 

Good luck with those fuses... :P.

 

Cheers

I

[thade]

If I'm a space marine sitting on the little bench in the rhino and my bolter goes off because I forgot to say the "engage safety" prayers, and hits some control panel, the techmarine could probably fix that from inside the vehicle.

 

But anything that's immobilizing a vehicle or destroying a vehicle is shooting at it from the outside. Thus you have to disembark to reach the outside. Then the techmarine and his servitor buddies can stand over the open rhino engine with a couple sacrificial beers saying the "i bet it's the alternator" benediction and the "could be a fuse" devotion. Then they perform the rites of "okay, try turning the key again" until the omnissiah looks favorably upon them.

 

This is by far my favorite response to this conundrum I posed. =)

 

I've settled on the side of "base to base contact = base/hull touching base/hull", which is not the case for something inside of a transport...as it's off the table. Base to base isn't about measuring range; it's about physical contact.

 

While I think it'd be cool for the techmarine to bust out of the hatch during the shooting phase and use his Dr. Octopus-style servoharness to repair the thing...he'd basically be so out of the hatch for so long that you'd be able to shoot at him anyway. He may as well disembark.

 

haha "I bet it's the alternator" benediction. Awesome.

[Vincent Black Shadow]

Heh, I wasn't arguing rules, just giving a logical reason as to why the rules would work as the majority has interpreted them and to which I agree.

 

As I see it there's no reading of the rules that allows you to be in base to base contact with a model while embarked upon that model. B2B requires that the models be physically next to each other on the table.

 

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." pg 66 BRB

 

That, to me, implies that the hull is the base for both the embarked model and the vehicle itself. They are, in effect, treated as one model until the passenger disembarks, with the exceptions for fire points. And a model cannot be in B2B contact with itself. Base to base defined as 0" is disregarding an important part... the base. It is a physical thing, on the table, representing a model's reach. B2B is not a range, but rather, a condition, similar to "in cover." And in order for that condition to be satisfied, there must be two actual bases (or hulls) physically touching on the table, just as > 50% of a unit must be in area terrain to be "in cover"

[Agrab]

Does a model in a Land Raider need to move out of it to assault?

Thankyou GTang. This would be the glaring hole in the theory of a Techmarine being able to repair a vehicle from the inside. Observe

 

In order to meaure the distance of the embarked Tech to the Transport using the embarked measuring rule on pg 66, you would measure from the Hull (tech) to the Hull (transport). These two points are a distance of B2B away, which would satisfy the rules for a repair.

 

For a unit assaulting they can only assault the transport because it is between them and the Tech, so the Tech is safe and the vehicle will not be locked in combat.

 

However, in the following SM assault phase, assuming the vehicle has not moved one could argue that the Tech could assault from inside the vehicle using the same rule on pg 66. The distance from the hull (Tech) to the base of the assaulters is B2B. This is not allowed, but it never says a unit can't assault from inside a vehicle specifically, but there are numerous rules regarding disembarking and assaulting, so there is collusion to support you can't assault from inside.

 

So you have to accept that you can't assault from inside a vehicle because you are unable to come in B2B with the target. Meaning that although you can measure from the hull for the embarked unit it doesn't count as the base for the embarked unit. If it isn't the base then no B2B contact can be established.

 

The only argument left is that Base in Base counts as B2B, but the not being able to assault will still apply.

 

Theory Debunked.

 

wait, are you saying that it is impossible to be B2B with something that is in assault with something else?

 

 

If I'm a space marine sitting on the little bench in the rhino and my bolter goes off because I forgot to say the "engage safety" prayers, and hits some control panel, the techmarine could probably fix that from inside the vehicle.

 

But anything that's immobilizing a vehicle or destroying a vehicle is shooting at it from the outside. Thus you have to disembark to reach the outside. Then the techmarine and his servitor buddies can stand over the open rhino engine with a couple sacrificial beers saying the "i bet it's the alternator" benediction and the "could be a fuse" devotion. Then they perform the rites of "okay, try turning the key again" until the omnissiah looks favorably upon them.

 

This is by far my favorite response to this conundrum I posed. =)

 

I've settled on the side of "base to base contact = base/hull touching base/hull", which is not the case for something inside of a transport...as it's off the table. Base to base isn't about measuring range; it's about physical contact.

 

While I think it'd be cool for the techmarine to bust out of the hatch during the shooting phase and use his Dr. Octopus-style servoharness to repair the thing...he'd basically be so out of the hatch for so long that you'd be able to shoot at him anyway. He may as well disembark.

 

haha "I bet it's the alternator" benediction. Awesome.

 

I am not required to take the models off of the table. So, can i simply lay him in my LR and then it works?

 

Heh, I wasn't arguing rules, just giving a logical reason as to why the rules would work as the majority has interpreted them and to which I agree.

 

As I see it there's no reading of the rules that allows you to be in base to base contact with a model while embarked upon that model. B2B requires that the models be physically next to each other on the table.

 

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." pg 66 BRB

 

That, to me, implies that the hull is the base for both the embarked model and the vehicle itself. They are, in effect, treated as one model until the passenger disembarks, with the exceptions for fire points. And a model cannot be in B2B contact with itself. Base to base defined as 0" is disregarding an important part... the base. It is a physical thing, on the table, representing a model's reach. B2B is not a range, but rather, a condition, similar to "in cover." And in order for that condition to be satisfied, there must be two actual bases (or hulls) physically touching on the table, just as > 50% of a unit must be in area terrain to be "in cover"

 

the problem is that the rules do not define anything about embarking. They simply say that you should indicate that the troops are in the vehicle. you could literally put them in there and follow the rules

 

they also dont define base-to-base, and if we are going with the literal wording, then assaulting a carnafex would be impossible

[Isiah]

the problem is that the rules do not define anything about embarking. They simply say that you should indicate that the troops are in the vehicle. you could literally put them in there and follow the rules

 

No you can't. Page 66 states that when a unit embarks "it is removed from the tabletop and placed aside, [...]".

 

 

I'm not understanding this talk about units assaulting one another. If there is a pertinent point there with regards B2B/vehicles/embarked, can someone make it more succintly please so I can understand it :P. Otherwise it's for discussion elsewhere.

 

Cheers

I

[Agrab]

the problem is that the rules do not define anything about embarking. They simply say that you should indicate that the troops are in the vehicle. you could literally put them in there and follow the rules

 

No you can't. Page 66 states that when a unit embarks "it is removed from the tabletop and placed aside, [...]".

 

 

I'm not understanding this talk about units assaulting one another. If there is a pertinent point there with regards B2B/vehicles/embarked, can someone make it more succintly please so I can understand it :P. Otherwise it's for discussion elsewhere.

 

Cheers

I

 

but it then says you can show this by placing a model on the unit (hull is base for a vehicle, hull is the entire body). That model can be the tech

[Dezartfox]

The Ork Mek boy can be inside or in b2b, it states that in the Ork Codex, I think if the marine player could use the ability whilst inside they'd have said it by now, they've had enough codex's to get it right.

 

The rules of:

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." pg 66 BRB

It's more or less saying that the vehicles hull is your base, you can't be in b2b with yourself...

 

I personally say its a NO, and he has to be outside. If he could be inside it would state.

[Commander Sasha]

If you wanted a more realistic fluff approach to repairing whilst inside than hanging out the window, the TM could be inside, furiously re-routing power to secondary drives, pulling power modules from racks etc.

Most people would be amazed how much system failure occurs during a stadium concert, with technicians re-patching on the fly. U2's Popmart tour, which had the first large scale LED video wall, actually made a feature of the vidiots abseiling down the wall swapping modules!

 

My 2p-worth: When shooting whilst embarked, a marine is considered 'inside' from the point of view of being shot at or assaulted, even though he isn't visible, but is still able to interface with the outside world.

 

I think this is a Monolith-Melta conundrum, and until a GW FAQ is released, I will always check with my opponent during 'show and tell', pre-game. My Monolith carrycase has a big sticker to remind me to ask this :D

[Isiah]

but it then says you can show this by placing a model on the unit (hull is base for a vehicle, hull is the entire body). That model can be the tech

 

Yes but that's purely a marker for what's inside - not a 'real model' in gameplay. Otherwise I could shoot at it.

 

Cheers

I

[Agrab]

but it then says you can show this by placing a model on the unit (hull is base for a vehicle, hull is the entire body). That model can be the tech

 

Yes but that's purely a marker for what's inside - not a 'real model' in gameplay. Otherwise I could shoot at it.

 

Cheers

I

 

correct, but it as arguable as the line stating that they are moved off the board because they are in the transport. The problem is, every rule regarding them requires them to count as in the transport, but, apparently, soon as it is the tech, that no longer is the case