Stormbreed wrote:
WMS has a clear rule saying you must be able to place your model if I request you to.

Yes it does. So you can establish LOS.

Which happens after the model has finished its movement phase.

I have never noticed a RAW that allows you to finish a movement in another models space.

Nobody has suggested that models should be able to finish their movement inside another model.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You both have to agree on the location.

And when the other player dissagrees due to things like sanity, reality or physics?

Then the game stops because not agreeing when player one describes the exact location of his model is insane.

P.S. Reality has nothing to do with the rules of 40K, they are not based on modern day real world logic.

They are an abstract system to simulate a battle in the far future, and not even on planet earth...

In their world the models have broken out a section of the wall using grenades, brute force etc so there is an opening, so they can exist in that space just fine. We do not break our terrain though because we can easilly describe the models position. (I.E. hold it just in front of the wall and say "The model is .5 inches in this direction he is coming through the wall and has not made it yet" If your opponent does not agree then he is TFG because you have described in detail where the model exists).

Game has one single rule regarding placing models in questionable positions.

**elect to ignore it and have a convoluted argument saying it does not apply to placing a model in a questionable position, further arguing that an element of that rule is in fact two distinct phrases not requiring each other**

HOLY HELL, THIS GAME IS BROKEN!

Has it been pointed out that an idiomatic reading of a rule is not RAW? RAW would be the literal parsing. If you're looking at RAW and not RAI, the intention, and therefore, cultural variance in the language would be irrelevant.

Bharring wrote:
Has it been pointed out that an idiomatic reading of a rule is not RAW? RAW would be the literal parsing. If you're looking at RAW and not RAI, the intention, and therefore, cultural variance in the language would be irrelevant.

Not entirely true. RAW simply means 'Rules as Written'... not 'Rules as Written, As Per The Strictest And Most Common Literal Dictionary Meaning'.


Not really an issue here, though, since the reading in question has nothing to do with 'cultural variance' and is simply to do with people choosing to only accept a single interpretation of a word with multiple uses.

The difference between denotation and connotation is the difference between the literal dictionary definition and the intention of the writer. RAW is the denotation, and RAI is the connotation.

Either we're talking RAW, which says the denotation of what is written (literal meaning), we're talking RAI, which says the connotation of what is written (what the author intended), or some hybrid. How would we draw the line, if we used some hybrid?

My point was that a literal reading can still result in multiple possible interpretations. A RAW argument needs to take all of those possible interpretations into consideration.

GW's rules aren't written as a technical document. They're written in a rather casual format, which results in a certain amount of that 'cultural idiom' creeping into the RAW.

Granted I haven't read the entire thread, just the first few pages, so perhaps these have already been explained.

What part of the rules in WMS allow you to ignore the rules for TLOS?

What vehicle, transport or otherwise, can you place a model on top of and that model be completely concealed for TLOS purposes?

Those being said, if you place a model on top of a wrecked vehicle, using WMS or not, what could possibly prevent me from being able to shoot it in my shooting phase provided I follow the rules for TLOS? I see no mention in the rules of being able to "climb inside wrecked vehicles". If you want to clamber on top of it to qualify for being in area terrain, go for it. But I get to shoot you using TLOS because I can see it on top of the vehicle.

Edit: Ah, after investigating further it seems this issue was settled relatively early on, and the actual argument that has spanned 11 pages has been an off-topic rant about WMS.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You both have to agree on the location.

And when the other player dissagrees due to things like sanity, reality or physics?

Then the game stops because not agreeing when player one describes the exact location of his model is insane.

P.S. Reality has nothing to do with the rules of 40K, they are not based on modern day real world logic.

They are an abstract system to simulate a battle in the far future, and not even on planet earth...

In their world the models have broken out a section of the wall using grenades, brute force etc so there is an opening, so they can exist in that space just fine. We do not break our terrain though because we can easilly describe the models position. (I.E. hold it just in front of the wall and say "The model is .5 inches in this direction he is coming through the wall and has not made it yet" If your opponent does not agree then he is TFG because you have described in detail where the model exists).

TFG has nothing to do with RAW arguments. You're specifically using an example that best suits your argument which I respect. However you can't place the model therefore you can not use the WMS rules. On top of that placing the model in such a way that makes it Immortal is the definition of being. TFG.

1. I'm going to roll 2D6,
2. I'm gonna move 6 into this mountain, I can't actually place my model so do you agree it's about "here".
3. No.
4. Well you're just being TFG and ruining the game then.
5. TO comes over and laughs at DR awards me a tabled victory.

Following rules that are clearly in place to make sure we don't have people doing what you're arguing to do doesn't make someone TFG.

Weirdly I'd be more RAI to allow your scenario about the model and the wall, why you ask? Because fluff supports it and we'd both agree I can still fire upon the model at will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
My point was that a literal reading can still result in multiple possible interpretations. A RAW argument needs to take all of those possible interpretations into consideration.

GW's rules aren't written as a technical document. They're written in a rather casual format, which results in a certain amount of that 'cultural idiom' creeping into the RAW.

Do you have a 2nd way to interpret "we must agree on the models actual location" or "any time I want you to, you must be able to place the model in its actual position".

It should go more like this:

1. I'm going to roll 2D6, I roll a 5 and a 2 so I get to move up to 5 inches.
2. I'm gonna move 5 Through this ruined wall, I can't actually place my model so do you agree it's about "here".
3. you say No.
4. So I continue to explain its precise location (Put it just outside the wall and say it is 1/2 of an inch in this specific direction. that is exactly where it is agreed?
5. No.
6. I continue to explain exactly where the model is until you understand the exact location.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 until you say yes.

It is just that simple.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It should go more like this:

1. I'm going to roll 2D6, I roll a 5 and a 2 so I get to move up to 5 inches.
2. I'm gonna move 5 Through this ruined wall, I can't actually place my model so do you agree it's about "here".
3. you say No.
4. So I continue to explain its precise location (Put it just outside the wall and say it is 1/2 of an inch in this specific direction. that is exactly where it is agreed?
5. No.
6. I continue to explain exactly where the model is until you understand the exact location.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 until you say yes.

It is just that simple.

First and foremost, just because you keep saying something doesn't make you right, No means No. You have no permission because the permission must be agreed on by both players.

You didn't read my post, I said walls from a RAI I'm okay with. However you don't keep trying to do something once its been proven invalid, regardless of how hard you want me to say yes because "but its right there". I've told you from a RAW standpoint how I don't agree with placement of that model, on top of that you won't be able to physically place the model afterwards, so you couldn't do it even if I agreed to let you.

Again the wall scenario from a fluffy feel actually works IMHO, reads as them blowing through the wall and it doesn't benefit your models more then mine. My argument is based on moving inside of a hill or other such terrain which would completely block LOS and create a situation where not only could you not physically place your model, said model is invulnerable in game, clearly not RAI, and no RAW to support it.

The problem with allowing units to melt through terrain is it always leeds to "hypothetical positions" which is why I don't play with melting through terrain. If it doesn't fit, go around,

You agree this alteration to the default with each and every opponent I assume? If so no issue.

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It should go more like this:

1. I'm going to roll 2D6, I roll a 5 and a 2 so I get to move up to 5 inches.
2. I'm gonna move 5 Through this ruined wall, I can't actually place my model so do you agree it's about "here".
3. you say No.
4. So I continue to explain its precise location (Put it just outside the wall and say it is 1/2 of an inch in this specific direction. that is exactly where it is agreed?
5. No.
6. I continue to explain exactly where the model is until you understand the exact location.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 until you say yes.

It is just that simple.

First and foremost, just because you keep saying something doesn't make you right, No means No. You have no permission because the permission must be agreed on by both players.

You didn't read my post, I said walls from a RAI I'm okay with. However you don't keep trying to do something once its been proven invalid, regardless of how hard you want me to say yes because "but its right there". I've told you from a RAW standpoint how I don't agree with placement of that model, on top of that you won't be able to physically place the model afterwards, so you couldn't do it even if I agreed to let you.

Again the wall scenario from a fluffy feel actually works IMHO, reads as them blowing through the wall and it doesn't benefit your models more then mine. My argument is based on moving inside of a hill or other such terrain which would completely block LOS and create a situation where not only could you not physically place your model, said model is invulnerable in game, clearly not RAI, and no RAW to support it.

So then, since I have shown/explained to you exactly where the model is, and you keep disagreeing, then the game comes to a halt until you agree on a location.

This also effects wrecked vehicle models as they are DT...

There really is no reason to not agree to something when I put the model on top f the wreck and say The model is in this location but directly below where he is as if his base was resting on the table.

You know the exact location of that model, as I have described it in detail really clearly.. Not agreeing to know the location is disingenuous..

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It should go more like this:

1. I'm going to roll 2D6, I roll a 5 and a 2 so I get to move up to 5 inches.
2. I'm gonna move 5 Through this ruined wall, I can't actually place my model so do you agree it's about "here".
3. you say No.
4. So I continue to explain its precise location (Put it just outside the wall and say it is 1/2 of an inch in this specific direction. that is exactly where it is agreed?
5. No.
6. I continue to explain exactly where the model is until you understand the exact location.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 until you say yes.

It is just that simple.

First and foremost, just because you keep saying something doesn't make you right, No means No. You have no permission because the permission must be agreed on by both players.

You didn't read my post, I said walls from a RAI I'm okay with. However you don't keep trying to do something once its been proven invalid, regardless of how hard you want me to say yes because "but its right there". I've told you from a RAW standpoint how I don't agree with placement of that model, on top of that you won't be able to physically place the model afterwards, so you couldn't do it even if I agreed to let you.

Again the wall scenario from a fluffy feel actually works IMHO, reads as them blowing through the wall and it doesn't benefit your models more then mine. My argument is based on moving inside of a hill or other such terrain which would completely block LOS and create a situation where not only could you not physically place your model, said model is invulnerable in game, clearly not RAI, and no RAW to support it.

So then, since I have shown/explained to you exactly where the model is, and you keep disagreeing, then the game comes to a halt until you agree on a location.


There really is no reason to not agree to something when I put the model on top f the wreck and say The model is in this location but directly below where he is as if his base was resting on the table.

You know the exact location of that model, as I have described it in detail really clearly.. Not agreeing to know the location is disingenuous..

Continuing to argue the point that your opponent has already said he doesn't agree on, when he has ever right to could also be determined as disingenuous.

Regardless, RAW you can't place your model in its location to draw LOS whenever I want to check LOS thus forth you can not place the model there using WMS.

HIYPI, Yes to the walls, fluff supports it, no to a hill or piece of DT which in any way would confer immortality to a model.

Stormbreed wrote:
Continuing to argue the point that your opponent has already said he doesn't agree on, when he has ever right to could also be determined as disingenuous.

If by "Continuing to argue the point that your opponent has already said he doesn't agree on" you mean specify more clearly so the opponent can understand exactly where the model is, then you are not correct.

Bottom line is, if I can explain exactly where the model has ended up (By using Geometry to figure out its exact location) then there is no reason to disagree as it has been clearly explained where the model is. According to the DT rules it is allowed to be there.

Regardless, RAW you can't place your model in its location to draw LOS whenever I want to check LOS thus forth you can not place the model there using WMS.

Yet the RAW surrounding DT allows the model to be there.

HIYPI, Yes to the walls, fluff supports it, no to a hill or piece of DT which in any way would confer immortality to a model.

Yet the DT rules tell us that a model can be there.

DT gives you permission to move through something. At no point does it give you permission to remove your model from the board, that's WMS and WMS specifically says you must be able to place the model.

You constantly say that real World Physics don't matter in 40k and then used them in your argument.

Stormbreed wrote:
... and WMS specifically says you must be able to place the model.

Only when your opponent wants to shoot at it. Not when you move the model.

 insaniak wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
... and WMS specifically says you must be able to place the model.

Only when your opponent wants to shoot at it. Not when you move the model.

I want to shoot at it while you're moving it...... It doesn't say I have to want to shoot at it in the shooting phase.....Doesn't mean one or the other.

So we're finished with sensible discussion, then?

 insaniak wrote:
So we're finished with sensible discussion, then?

The moment you argued you can use WMS to place your model in a place I don't agree and you can't actually place it, yes we were.

Moving on, then...