Ordnance/blast weapons striking Walkers

[ShinyRhino]

I have a friend who's wondering about the rulings for Blast and Ordnance weapons when firing at walkers. The conundrum comes from the fact that walkers are vehicles, yet they have a base. The general question boils down to, are walkers hit by Blast and Ordnance templates based on the actual hull of the walker, or by the hole falling over the base?

 

The rule on page 72 of the BRB seems to state that it uses the base:

 

"If a walker has a base, measure ranges TO AND FROM its base, as you would for an infantry model. If a walker does not have a base (like the Chaos Defiler), measure TO AND FROM its hull (including its legs and other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Firing the walker's OWN weapons is an exception to this, as explained later on this page."

 

He seems to be upset that since his Kans are smaller than the base, he's at some sort of disadvantage because hits still strike the base, and not the hull of the actual model.

He has provided the following rules as counters to the "measure to the base" ruling from p72:

 

BRB: pg60

"The center of the blast marker ends outside the vehicle, but part of the marker covers the hull. In this case the shell or missile has missed the vehicle, and only some shrapnel clanks against the vehicle's armor. The armor penetration roll is resolved against the Armor Value facing the centre of the marker, regardless of the position of the firer and the weapons strength is halved (rounded down). "

 

BRB, p72

"SHOOTING AT WALKERS

When firing at a walker, work out which of its Armor Values to use as you would for any other vehicle, BASED ON THE POSITION OF ITS BODY."

 

 

My submission is that the walker rules are a subsetof the vehicle rules on p60, and therefore modify them. The Shooting at Walkers rule above is used purely for armor values, NOT hits or misses. Yes, no?

[Ming]

My vote is for hull, just like normal vehicles. There seems to be nothing in the rules to say otherwise that I can recall. This would got for all dread-like walkers. Kans being a small-sized variant.

[ShinyRhino]

My vote is for hull, just like normal vehicles. There seems to be nothing in the rules to say otherwise that I can recall. This would got for all dread-like walkers. Kans being a small-sized variant.

 

Problem is, the ruling for using the base is clearly defined in the rules. If you start quibblnig about a quarter inch of base, you're going to have opponents demanding you use hull for things like base contact for assault, and hence your Kans now become unassaultable, since they cannot gain base contact, ever. That half-inch of base prevents you from ever basing another model with your hull, which, by that definition, is how vehicles would be hit. Unless you try to make yet another exception to the rules for the Kans, which would then start claims of shenanigans from opponents, since you're bending the wording of every rule in the book for an advantage to your Kans.

[wizard12]

I would say the base then work out armour value from the centre of the blast, like cover.

[Sparhawk]

Wouldn't it be base and then if the hole was not over the base we treat it as if the hole were not over the hull? Except for facing doesn't it make sense to treat the base as a theoretical hull?

[ShinyRhino]

Wouldn't it be base and then if the hole was not over the base we treat it as if the hole were not over the hull? Except for facing doesn't it make sense to treat the base as a theoretical hull?

 

That's exactly how it should be done by the rules on p72.

[Ntin]

The problem is not all walkers have a base. Those of the Chaos variety Defilers and Soul Grinders are without a base. I would go off the hull.

[Seahawk]

Actually, you're totally within the rules to claim that the hole must be over the hull while simultaneously using the base to measure assaults. There are two reasons walkers have bases where other vehicles don't: they fall over otherwise (old metal ones being exceptions), and it, like other based models, represents their affectable area (by flailing power claws, etc).

 

Looking through the Ordnance/blast weapon section on page 60, it clearly states the hole must be over a vehicle's hull to get full strength. There are no exceptions anywhere in the book that state otherwise, so that's what it is. The bit on page 72 about walker's bases is absolutely meaningless to this issue, as that is for measure ranges and distances, not for finding out where the hole of the template is in relation to the hull. Now, it defines the hull of a dreadnought as including all of its limbs, which is good for us as we now know how much space it occupies on the base for just these circumstances.

 

The rules say your friend gets to take advantage of the fact he has smaller walkers.

[ShinyRhino]

The problem is not all walkers have a base. Those of the Chaos variety Defilers and Soul Grinders are without a base. I would go off the hull.

 

Except that the rules explicitly mention those, and direct you what to do for them. All walkers with bases fall under the rule on p72. :)

[ShinyRhino]

Looking through the Ordnance/blast weapon section on page 60, it clearly states the hole must be over a vehicle's hull to get full strength. There are no exceptions anywhere in the book that state otherwise, so that's what it is. The bit on page 72 about walker's bases is absolutely meaningless to this issue, as that is for measure ranges and distances, not for finding out where the hole of the template is in relation to the hull. Now, it defines the hull of a dreadnought as including all of its limbs, which is good for us as we now know how much space it occupies on the base for just these circumstances.

 

But isn't the placement of the template's center hole a measure of range and distance?

[Seahawk]

Yes, but not to the walker; it's a measure of where the thing lands, which is entirely distinct from the walker. You'd measure the range of the ordnance weapon to the base to see if it's in range.

[ShinyRhino]

Yes, but not to the walker; it's a measure of where the thing lands, which is entirely distinct from the walker. You'd measure the range of the ordnance weapon to the base to see if it's in range.

 

Hmmm. So it looks like the base is used for direct-fire weapons and measurements of movement. The Blast and Ordnance rules do not use the standard measurement rules, since they are scatter weapons. Makes sense.

But, you CAN score a direct hit by landing the hole over an arm or leg, since they are defined as part of the "body" or "hull." Seems like a fair enough trade off.

[Seahawk]

Bingo! :)

[Frosty the Pyro]

if it has a base, you use the base, thats the purpose of bases. if it doesnt have a base you use the hull.

[Seahawk]

No, you only use the base for certain purposes (some distance measures). You use the hull for others (determining direct hits and walkers' firing).

[SeattleDV8]

Sorry , but thats not what the rules say,BRB pg. 72

""If a walker has a base, measure ranges TO AND FROM its base, as you would for an infantry model. If a walker does not have a base (like the Chaos Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including its legs and other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Firing the walker's OWN weapons is an exception to this, as explained later on this page."

 

If a walker has a base you treat it the same as an infantry model.

The hull only counts if the model doesn't have a base.

Are you claiming that if a blast marker is over an infantry base but not the model that it is not hit?

[Ming]

What does INAT say on this?

[Isiah]

What does INAT say on this?

 

Well INAT good though it is, isn't in any way an official rules source and can/does get things wrong. I'd prefer to hammer it out amongst ourselves :). If it's proven to be a Grey Area issue then fine -- that's what it'll be.

 

Cheers

I

[Cedric]

Sorry , but thats not what the rules say,BRB pg. 72

""If a walker has a base, measure ranges TO AND FROM its base, as you would for an infantry model. If a walker does not have a base (like the Chaos Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including its legs and other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Firing the walker's OWN weapons is an exception to this, as explained later on this page."

 

If a walker has a base you treat it the same as an infantry model.

The hull only counts if the model doesn't have a base.

Are you claiming that if a blast marker is over an infantry base but not the model that it is not hit?

 

Using bases for measuring range is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't tell us to use bases for purposes of walkers getting hit by blasts. It /explicitly/ states that blasts hit with full force if the centre of the blast is over the hull. The base is part of the model, yes. But it is not part of the hull.

 

Infantry and vehicles are apples and oranges. Walkers are a little bit of both.

[ShinyRhino]

INAT says nothing about it anyways.

 

I have to say I'm a recent convert to the usage of the hull for hits. It seems to be an exception to the "measure ranges to the base" rule, because the explanation of the Blast and ordnance weapons say about as much. I'm fine with measuring direct fire weapons to the base, and blast/ord to the hull. We're talking one-in-a-few-hundred possibility of it even mattering anyways. Most walkers fill 80-90% of their provided base when looking straight down (including guns, arms, and legs). That remaining 10-20% is a fraction of an inch in any direction, and scatter of less than 2" is still going to put the hole over the walker's hull anyways. 2"+ and you're off the base entirely.

The only real time it would matter would be a blast or ordnance hit that scattered ONTO the walker by a fraction of an inch, and in that case, you can always dice off on it, or take the half-strength hit. /shrug.

[Seahawk]

The hull only counts if the model doesn't have a base.

Incorrect. As stated directly in the rules, you use the hull for determining the force of blast weapon hits, not its base.

 

Are you claiming that if a blast marker is over an infantry base but not the model that it is not hit?

Of course not. Infantry and walkers have similar but different rules sets regarding blast weapons and range measuring, among other things. Say someone makes an exceptionally large base for their Killa Kans and is allowed to play it...the hole of the template hits the base while the edge of it doesn't even touch the walker at all...your argument would claim that you get full strength hit on the Kan, despite not actually hitting it at all?