For purposes of LOS, does a model's base count as the model?

[Morticon]

Yes? 
No?

 

Why? 

 

This seems to have generated a lot of discussion in a local group I'm in, and apparently has seen the WTC rule it as "no". 

What is your take?  (Please provide reasons/rules).  

[Lord Raven 19]

I would say No, because I see the base as only being in existence to allow the model to stand up, it's a necessity for effective models, but should have a minimal impact on gameplay, beyond movement.

[Morticon]

I would say No, because I see the base as only being in existence to allow the model to stand up, it's a necessity for effective models, but should have a minimal impact on gameplay, beyond movement.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Lord Raven - apologies for what will sound like a very snarky response - its honestly not. I do appreciate the thoughts.

 

However, "how we see" an aspect of the game is not relevant for the rules forum, in that it has no bearing on what the rules actually are. 

 

 

The issue at hand is that the rules are unclear (hence conflicting ruling/debate elsewhere). Because of that, we need to pool knowledge of existing rules, reference them and use them to build the respective arguments.

 

Biggest issue is that, unlike Kill Team for example, "a model" is never defined.  However, distances and effects of cover are all worked to and from the bases - and this is compunded when the word base and model are used interchangeably in some instances but not others.

 

 

Anyone found anything specific? 

[Xenith]

So a model hiding behind a curtain would be invisible as only the base would be showing, not it's feet? And you can't see an AIRCRAFT if it's base is behind a hill?

 

The base represents the area that the model takes up.

 

"An INFANTRY, BEAST or SWARM model receives the benefits of cover from an Obstacle while it is within 3" of that terrain feature unless, when you resolve an attack that targets that model's unit, you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of that model’s base from a single point on the attacking model’s base (or hull) without any of those lines passing over or through any part of this terrain feature."

 

 

In the rules, the entirety of the base has to be exposed to lose the benefits of cover. If the miniature of the guardsman is out in the open 100% visible, but part of the base is not visible to the attacking unit, the model counts as being in cover. 

 

The whole game is based on the assumption that the model comprised a miniature upon a base. If you argue that the base isnt part of the model, then the game breaks down. Ranges are declared base to base, but if you say the model doesnt include the area of the base...then that boltgun can't shoot me as my base is 23.9" away, but my miniature is mounted to the back of the base, so actually further away. 

 

In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model. 

 

 

Measuring distances:

 

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. 

 

 

So you measure to the base. If you are in range of the base, you are in range of the model. 

 

------------------

 

The guys you're playing are rules lawyering to the extreme. I doubt the WTC ruling, but that's a house rule if anything, and not GW rules as written. As GW says, though, everyone is welcome to modify the game and house rule as they see fit to enjoy the game.

 

People need to remember that this is a game, not a simulation, therefore a degree of abstraction is needed. The base represents the physical space a model occupies, otherwise you could never charge something - I'll mount my HQ choice on a 100mm base so some one can ever get within 1". 

 

Likewise, distances are measures from any point of the hull of a vehicle with no base when shooting...does the group still allow lascannons to be fired from dozer blades, sponsons that cannot draw LOS to fire, etc?

 

The issue at hand is that the rules are unclear (hence conflicting ruling/debate elsewhere). 

 

The issue is also that GW rules writers see that a models base is part of the model is such a basic, fundamental part of the game, they never felt the need to clarify that it is. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Xenith

[Morticon]

Xenith- im on the same page, interestingly - the same evidence you raised was what I raised in the group.

[Xenith]

Xenith- im on the same page, interestingly - the same evidence you raised was what I raised in the group.

 

I mean, the rulebook never clarifies what a model is also, so if anyone argues this, just stick a load of bases on the table and play a game with them. By their own interpretation, they cannot see or shoot you as they dont have LOS to the model (which is whataver you like, a hologram of a marine, ghost marine, etc), but you can still claim objectives as your base will be within 3" of objectives. Reductio ad absurdum. 

[Leonaides]

I would have gone the other way tbh. In previous edition (really can't remember which, sorry). True los rules said to target the model you had to be able to see a part of its 'body', ruling out things like banners, weapons, heroic rocks etc. To me that would indicate not the base.

[Xenith]

I would have gone the other way tbh. In previous edition (really can't remember which, sorry). True los rules said to target the model you had to be able to see a part of its 'body', ruling out things like banners, weapons, heroic rocks etc. To me that would indicate not the base.

 

That's the issue though - it was a previous edition. In that edition, you also had to be able to draw LOS from that models head to the target, otherwise no shot, likewise weapon barrels on vehicles needed LOS for each weapon - things that are very specifically not in the rules in 9th edition.

[Leonaides]

True, and it's a bit wobbly justification I'd admit. But it is the only time I've ever seen a proper description of what constitutes the target. Would follow on from not being able to target bits of a scratch built base/diorama style thing to not penalise good modeling.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If you can just see say the edge of a base it probably it prolly counts .

[tychobi]

Base is part of the model. If you can see it shoot it.

[Xenith]

Base is part of the model. If you can see it shoot it.

 

That's the thing, it doesn't specifically say that, so they rules lawyers are arguing that base =/= model (which is nonsense)/

[Slasher956]

flip the question -

I have metal sisters on the old 28mm base and new plastic sisters on the larger 32mm base....Does it matter?

If it matters that my battle sisters are on 2 different sized bases then there is a requirement of more that meassuring distances.

[tychobi]

 

 

Base is part of the model. If you can see it shoot it.

That's the thing, it doesn't specifically say that, so they rules lawyers are arguing that base =/= model (which is nonsense)/

Fine. I declare paint is not part of my model, it is a separate coating. Now its invisible!

 

I come from a family of lawyers

[Dam13n]

If you aren't going to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion, then don't post. Consider this a first warning, there will not be a second.

[Xenith]

flip the question -

 

I have metal sisters on the old 28mm base and new plastic sisters on the larger 32mm base....Does it matter?

 

If it matters that my battle sisters are on 2 different sized bases then there is a requirement of more that meassuring distances.

Measuring distances has it's own rules (using bases) and has nothing to do with the Line of Sight rules (which use models)

Edited September 11, 2021 by Xenith

[Gederas]

Yes? 

No?

 

Why? 

 

This seems to have generated a lot of discussion in a local group I'm in, and apparently has seen the WTC rule it as "no". 

 

What is your take?  (Please provide reasons/rules).  

This is one of those questions that's a question because GW seems to not answer it in 40k. However, Necromunda (which also uses the same LoS as 40k) flat-out states bases don't count as part of the model for LoS purposes. Don't have my Necromunda rulebook handy (it's in my car) but I think the "what is targetable" is the same as 40k in regards to that, but adds "bases don't count".

[Rogue]

I can't back this up with rules quotes, but...

 

My group has always made a distinction between the model and the base. The model is the 'thing' - the marine/cultist/genestealer - whereas the base is the round plastic disc the model stands on.

 

We use the model for line of sight, and the base for measuring distance. If the model is hidden behind a wall, but the base is sticking out, you can't shoot the model (no line of sight) even if you can see the base.

 

Similarly, if the model is fully visible, but part of the base is obscured by, say, a munitorum container, then the model still gets cover because the rules talk about the base.

 

It works for us.

 

(And is pretty much what Xenith is saying, about two posts up.)