So pretty sure I just got hosed bad.

Was playing Chaos player, Berserker heavy list. I had my GH squad fire dual meltas into a Zerker rhino, desteoyed - exploded result. Yea, I will assault them now. The guy places his Zerkers on the other side of the rhino, as if they disembarked, thus putting them out of assault range. I told him that the vehicle is removed and the unit is supposed to be placed in the crater to which he replied, they are on the edge of the crater. Now he did this twice to me, with two separate GH packs which both times I would have robbed him of his chwrge bonus and FC. Again mentioning that they were just on the far edge of the crater. Understand that he was NOT inside the footprint of the rhino, but as if he disembarked from it.

Game is over, but I will play this guy again someday and want the argument against this obvious stretch of placing inside the crater.

p.61 Destroyed -- Explodes
The vehicle is [then] removed and is replaced with an area of difficult ground...

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test.

The passengers should be in the crater, not on the edge out of charge distance.

Open and shut case.

As KK said, nothing says they're placed anywhere in particular on the crater. They're placed where the vehicle used to be. If this happens to be on the very edge of the footprint of the vehicle, so be it, that's legal, but they cannot be placed OUTSIDE of the footprint of the vehicle.

Legally, he could've just moved them about a millimeter so that part of the base was barely inside of the vehicle's previous footprint and it'd be kosher, so you didn't get hosed too bad. Just slightly.

umm... no. The passengers are supposed to be placed where the vehicle was, not so that one of them, or some of them, or none of them are on the outside tip of the crater. If he really wants to be a super d*ck than replace the craters you have with ones the size of say... a rhino. That way when he is cheating he won't be able to get away from you and he will still get to have them on the 'edge' of a crater.

SaintHazard wrote:As KK said, nothing says they're placed anywhere in particular on the crater. They're placed where the vehicle used to be. If this happens to be on the very edge of the footprint of the vehicle, so be it, that's legal, but they cannot be placed OUTSIDE of the footprint of the vehicle.

Legally, he could've just moved them about a millimeter so that part of the base was barely inside of the vehicle's previous footprint and it'd be kosher, so you didn't get hosed too bad. Just slightly.

Well the rule says inside the crater. Anything other then inside the crater is not inside the crater. If I was standing outside of a house and put one foot in the door, I am not in the house.

I think I am going to pick up some felt from the fabric store, cut out several vehicle shapes, and that will be the standard for craters I bring to the gaming table.

Good call.

what if it was, for exampl a skimmer, moving flat out

It asks you to be placed within the footprint. If 1mm of your base is within the footprint, you ARE within the footperint.

It places no restriction s saying *entirely* within the foot print.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It asks you to be placed within the footprint. If 1mm of your base is within the footprint, you ARE within the footperint.

It places no restriction s saying *entirely* within the foot print.

That is not what it says. It says this:

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be...

SaintHazard wrote:Legally, he could've just moved them about a millimeter so that part of the base was barely inside of the vehicle's previous footprint and it'd be kosher, so you didn't get hosed too bad. Just slightly.

No he could not have, see below.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It asks you to be placed within the footprint. If 1mm of your base is within the footprint, you ARE within the footperint.

It places no restriction s saying *entirely* within the foot print.

P.3 measuring distances "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be

The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be, ergo the area of the base needs to be *entirely* within the foot print.

if a part of the area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be, then you have broken a rule.

Before this turns into a flame war, I hope everyone involved realizes that it's often impossible to place all models entirely within a Xeno transport's footprint. Try placing 12 25mm models entirely within the footprint of a Falcon.

Remember that GW doesn't write rules for tournaments, so you have to be somewhat adaptable. In this case you place as many models as is possible within the vehicle's radius. It does sound like the OP's opponent cheated - intentionally or otherwise is impossible to say, however.

Yes, that's true.

Of course, some of the passengers may get killed in the explosion.

If not, the key question is whether the models should be placed as much as possible within the vehicle's outline -- clustered in a kind of deepstriking arrangement -- or whether they can be placed around the edge of the outline to move them farther away from potential assault.

Nos hit it right on the head. There's no qualifier saying the base must be entirely within the footprint of the vehicle, and NOTHING says anything about placing them inside the CRATER. Those words are never used, and if you're using them, you're altering the rules.

The rules say the models are placed where the vehicle used to be. If even a millimeter of your base is inside the footprint, you're satisfying the requirements. If you have one foot inside a house, you are both inside the house and not inside the house. "Not inside the house" is something you're not disallowed from being as long as you're also "inside the house." Your foot, inside the house, means you are legally placing your self-model.

SaintHazard wrote:Nos hit it right on the head. There's no qualifier saying the base must be entirely within the footprint of the vehicle, and NOTHING says anything about placing them inside the CRATER. Those words are never used, and if you're using them, you're altering the rules.

The rules say the models are placed where the vehicle used to be. If even a millimeter of your base is inside the footprint, you're satisfying the requirements. If you have one foot inside a house, you are both inside the house and not inside the house. "Not inside the house" is something you're not disallowed from being as long as you're also "inside the house." Your foot, inside the house, means you are legally placing your self-model.

The vehicle used to be in a factory in Nottingham. If your models aren't placed with 1mm of their base overlapping the loading gate of the factory, you have broken the rules.

Kilkrazy wrote:The vehicle used to be in a factory in Nottingham. If your models aren't placed with 1mm of their base overlapping the loading gate of the factory, you have broken the rules.

Except that game terms and real-world terms don't overlap. That's why qualifiers like "where the vehicle used to be on the table" are not necessary - this is all understood. So you only need to place the infantry where the vehicle used to be on the game table on which you're playing the game for which the rules were written, et cetera.

I get the feeling you're being facetious, but just in case you're not, there it is.

SaintHazard wrote:Nos hit it right on the head. There's no qualifier saying the base must be entirely within the footprint of the vehicle, and NOTHING says anything about placing them inside the CRATER. Those words are never used, and if you're using them, you're altering the rules.

The rules say the models are placed where the vehicle used to be. If even a millimeter of your base is inside the footprint, you're satisfying the requirements. If you have one foot inside a house, you are both inside the house and not inside the house. "Not inside the house" is something you're not disallowed from being as long as you're also "inside the house." Your foot, inside the house, means you are legally placing your self-model.

There is a qualifier for the model being entirely within the footprint of the vehicle.

Since 'a model is considered to occupy the area of its base' (P.3)

Therefore the area of its base must be 'where the vehicle used to be'

If the 'area of its base' is outside 'where the vehicle used to be' then you have not followed the Rule:

"p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."

you draw an imaginary box where the vehicle used to be and the 'area of its base' is placed where the vehicle used to be.

Not partially within where the vehicle used to be, not outside of where the vehicle used to be. 'where the vehicle used to be' anything else would be breaking the rule.

DR - you are making things up again. Surprise.

There is NO QUALIFIER at all - the rule has already been given.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to point out: this is the EXACT same made up rule that you attempted to use, and was disproved dozens of time, in the "immobilised just on the table" thread.

It didnt pass muster then, it doesnt now. Presenting it as fact when it isnt is....well, i'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

The measuring section lets you know that models partially within x inches are said to be within x inches.

Not only is there no qualifier, there is explicit allowance.

Well.

We are as usual dealing with GW written rules, which is why I made my facetious example of placing the passengers within the factory where the vehicle model was produced.

The point is that lots of terms, such as "assault", are used in the rules, and may or may not have different meanings to their meaning IRL. If their meaning in the game is different, it needs to be defined.

People not unnaturally read the rules in English, rather than GW rule lawyerese.

The best argument that can be found for nudging ex-passengers 1mm over the edge of the crater is this:

p.61. Damage Results 6 Destroyed -- Explodes
The vehicle is then removed and replaced with an area of difficult ground ... or a crater ...

p.13. Area Terrain
It is left to the players to define if a vehicle explosion debris field is area terrain, giving cover.

p.22. Inside Area Terrain
Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover...

(Please note that a crater isn't area terrain.)

If we follow the principle that a model touching a piece of area terrain is in cover, and we consider that the debris field of an exploded vehicle gives cover, there is grounds for allowing ex-passengers to be placed touching the edge of the debris field. OTOH we could equally fairly conclude that the presence of cover is irrelevant, since the rule on p.67 doesn't mention it.

However if a crater is used, it is not area terrain, so models cannot claim to be in the area if their base edge overlaps it. In this case, we would decide that the ex-passengers must be placed within the crater as fully as possible, to comply with the rule on p.67.

On balance, given the commplexities and uncertainties of the whole thing, I would suggest that ex-passenger models be placed within the area formally occupied by the vehicle. This has the great advantage of simplicity.

I think some of you don't realize the players rationale of the edge of the crater.

Think of when you deploy your first rank of a unit out of a transport. You hug along the edge of your vehicle before you start placing your second rank.

So I destroyed - exploded the Berserkers Rhino. He placed the surviving Berserkers alongside the Rhino, exactly as if he had just disembarked them, and said they were on the edge of the crater.

I am going to be getting some opinions on I from some locals and see how the store will be playing it.

The way I see it is like when a clown car explodes and the passengers are left lying on a pile of wreckage, smoke coming out of their hair.

When you disembark normally you place the passengers within two inches of an exit. They don't have to hug the hull.

And I think there is a qualifier.

"The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a pinning test."

Now if the model is said to occupy the area of its base, then we know the exact area of where the vehicle used to be.

If you were then to partialy place just the edge of the models base in the exact known area of where the vehicle used to be, the remaining part of the models base is not where the vehicle used to be. The model may be partially where the vehicle used to be, but that is not the rule.

Now, I can see where the argument is coming from some that says the rule does not give you an absolute, however like I just pointed out we are given am absolute. The Rhino in this case occupied the area of its base so therefore where the vehicle used to be is clearly defined. Anything outside that area is not inside the place it used to be.

And the model IS inside where it used to be, as you are told that if 1mm of a model is inside X range the whole model is considered to be,.

You are not told to place *entirely* within, so you dont have to.

Didnt this come up in a similar fashion to the thread about reserves coming on the table? As in, if its partially on, its on? So hence through that argument, if each model in the squad is partially where the vehicle used to be, then it should be legal?

At our FLGS, we replace the tank with the crater and make sure that the squad is in the "big hole" as part of that piece of terrain.

1. It is definitely up to the player to determine whether or not a piece of terrain is "area terrain"; this goes for a crater.

2. The word "inside" is totally up for debate. If you have one foot inside a house, and the other on the sidewalk, you are both inside and not inside the house.

3. As is the classic case of this forum, just because something isn't mentioned in the rules as being explicitly forbidden, doesn't mean that it is acceptable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - you are making things up again. Surprise.

There is NO QUALIFIER at all - the rule has already been given.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to point out: this is the EXACT same made up rule that you attempted to use, and was disproved dozens of time, in the "immobilised just on the table" thread.

It didnt pass muster then, it doesnt now. Presenting it as fact when it isnt is....well, i'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Note that none of the rules that i referenced, i made up.

those are the rules as quoted from the BRB

and since the area of the base (note: please learn what area means) needs to be where the vehicle used to be, then you have to place the area of the base where the vehicle used to be, and not outside of that area.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And the model IS inside where it used to be, as you are told that if 1mm of a model is inside X range the whole model is considered to be,.

You are not told to place *entirely* within, so you dont have to.

I think you are mixing the requiremnts with cover to justify your position. Just so I understand, are you considering the requirements of cover on pg 22 of the BRB:

I

Inside aread terrain: Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover;.....

That doesn't define if a model is inside the area that used to be a vehicle, that defines if a model is in cover and only that. If the rule said place the survivors in the cover created by the destroyed vehicle, partially placing the base of the model in the cover would be sufficient.

DR - you are making up the requirement to be ENTIRELY within. You made it up last time a question about partially / entirely was brought up, and you were thoroughly debunked then. Please stop making up rules.

Until you can find the word "entirely" anywhere in the rules for Exploded, please stop pretending it is there.

BR - not mixing them up, just that the rule, contrary to the made up rule that DR made up, makes no requirement to be entirely within. If you can measure to the model being inside the "footprint" of the vehicle, the model is inside - partially, but that is all that is asked. It is also partially outside, but again - no requirement is made about being outside, at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - you are making up the requirement to be ENTIRELY within. You made it up last time a question about partially / entirely was brought up, and you were thoroughly debunked then. Please stop making up rules.

Until you can find the word "entirely" anywhere in the rules for Exploded, please stop pretending it is there.

BR - not mixing them up, just that the rule, contrary to the made up rule that DR made up, makes no requirement to be entirely within. If you can measure to the model being inside the "footprint" of the vehicle, the model is inside - partially, but that is all that is asked. It is also partially outside, but again - no requirement is made about being outside, at all.

Please prove me wrong, you have yet to do so. the rules are clear, and I have not made any of these rules up.

The "area of the base (note: please learn what area means) needs to be where the vehicle used to be"

The area of a 1" base is 0.785 and that area needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

So 0.785 of the base needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

DeathReaper wrote:

The "area of the base (note: please learn what area means) needs to be where the vehicle used to be"

Where's this quote from?

generaly we outline the transport with dice than place them in the boundaries treating the cube as difficult terrain

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The "area of the base (note: please learn what area means) needs to be where the vehicle used to be"

Where's this quote from?

He wont be able to provide you with a quote because it doesn't exist. However the summary of the rules he is referencing holds merit.

On pg 3, a model is defined to occupy the area of its base.

So when it tells you to place the survivors, aka models, where the vehicle used to be, he is pointing out that you can only do that by placing the base inside that area. In otherwords, it is defined that the entire base is the model and only partially placing it is not placing the model as directed.

My argument does not so much address the survivors, but what is defined as where the vehicle used to be.

If a model occupies the area of its base, where the vehicle used to be is very clear cut. It is a proverbial line in the sand. When you are directed to place the survivors where the vehicles used to be, it has to be within the area that was accupied by the base of the vehicle.

So if you place .001 of a survivor where the vehicle used to be, you have .999 of the model NOT where the vehicle used to be. RAW the rule does not mention partially placing the model where the vehicle used to be at all. So you are not placing the survivors as directed into the area the vehicle used to be as defined by the BRB. You are partially placing it where it used to be but are also partially placing it where it never was. That is not the directions given to you as RAW.

As has been mentioned several times in this forum with other situations, "it doesn't say I can't partially place them where the vehicle used to be" wont stand up as an argument.

Brother Ramses wrote:I think I am going to pick up some felt from the fabric store, cut out several vehicle shapes, and that will be the standard for craters I bring to the gaming table.

Good idea. So, Wave Serpent, Devilfish (gonna need *lots* of those ), Land Raider, *sigh* rhino ...

Try fitting 20 Ork boys entirely within the area of an exploded battlewagon. No chance.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The "area of the base (note: please learn what area means) needs to be where the vehicle used to be"

Where's this quote from?

From my earlier post

here it is.

DeathReaper wrote:

P.3 measuring distances "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be

The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be, ergo the area of the base needs to be *entirely* within the foot print.

if a part of the area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be, then you have broken a rule.

He didn't ask you to quote yourself, he asked you to quote the rulebook. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say the entire "area of the base" needs to be within the footprint of the vehicle. Nowhere.

You're still making things up.

Stop adding rules where there are none.

Until you can point to the rulebook (post a picture, please, your "quotes" from the rulebook are simply not accurate) and show me where the word "entirely" appears, your point is not valid.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

SaintHazard wrote:we'll wait.

im not going to wait im going to convert marneus calgard


In all seriousness, I myself am not too sure on what he should have done with his 'zerkers. I will read this and find out myself.

Regardless of what all of your definition of "where the vehicle use to be" is, the op might still have gotten hosed badly. If it was the side of a rhino and the zerker squad suffered casualties AND assuming the chaos player decided to use this interpretation of the rules specifically, he could have only put around 5-6 like that, and only in a straight line. Excess models couldnt be placed behind those, as that would mean they're no longer under the footprint of the vehicle at all.

SaintHazard wrote:He didn't ask you to quote yourself, he asked you to quote the rulebook. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say the entire "area of the base" needs to be within the footprint of the vehicle. Nowhere.

You're still making things up.

Stop adding rules where there are none.

Until you can point to the rulebook (post a picture, please, your "quotes" from the rulebook are simply not accurate) and show me where the word "entirely" appears, your point is not valid.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Here are your rulebook quotes:

P.3 measuring distances "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
"The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"

Surviving passengers = Model = area of the base,

therefore, Straight out of the rules, The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be

Now we have to look at the footprint of the model, this is, after all, where the vehicle used to be.

Models are placed in this footprint so the area of the base is placed in this footprint.

The area of a 1" base is 0.785 and that area needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

So 0.785 of the base needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

nothing made up, all right out of the rules.

Please, if i have made any of this up, let me know what i have made up. Because I am just taking this from the rules.

DeathReaper wrote:
Please, if i have made any of this up, let me know what i have made up. Because I am just taking this from the rules.

Still not seeing "entirely within" in there anywhere.

I'd have to agree with Deathreaper on this one. What Nos and Sainthazard are describing sounds more like disembarking. The rules do say that the models have to be placed "where the vehicle used to be". To me, that means that the outer borders of the vehicle are the outer borders of where models can be placed. He's not making anything up. If only 1% of the models base area (0.785 square inches is inside this perimeter, the other 99% of the model is not where the vehicle used to be. There isn't a rule I've seen quoted that says what portion of the base needs to be inside in order to satisfy the rule. So it falls into a gray area that needs to be agreed upon with your opponent what is actually meant AT BEST.
Strictly RAW, they have to be where the vehicle was.

The only really valid counterpoint that made me think was the example of 20 orks inside a battlewagon. My battlewagon measures 4 inches by 6 inches, yours may be more. Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.
So theres no reason some beserkers couldn't make it in the hole left by the vehicle exploding. Unless of course they're just trying to WAAC. In which case I usually take it as a compliment, as my army has obviously caused enough pants-browning to warrant this kind of calling all technicalities behavior.
In any event I'd just call it a day at this point Deathreaper. Theres no way these guys will admit defeat, because there isn't a definative rule either way, and my personal experience is you'll only keep quoting legitimate rules to have them claim that your interpretation is 'making gak up'. Even though theirs is also making stuff up, simply because there isnt a quotable rule for what percentage of the models base needs to be in to qualify. Its something you need to work out with your opponent, and if you cant work things out with someone, odds are they're not exactly the friends making type.
Just cite the rulebook for what you know in your FLGS and if you play there often enough without being an asshat (spending money also helps from a store owner perspective, and usually their say is final, at least in that store), your being able to quote the rules is about as good as it gets.

Doomthumbs wrote:~Snip

You realise you just said circles tessellate?

No, I just said that there is enough total square area there to justify it. I realize circles are... circles. Sadly there is no such thing as inches circled.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Please, if i have made any of this up, let me know what i have made up. Because I am just taking this from the rules.

Still not seeing "entirely within" in there anywhere.

0.785 of the base needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

the area of the base takes up 0.785 inches squared. That area is what has to be where the vehicle used to be. If any part of it is not where the vehicle used to be, then it is an illegal placement.

the area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be (not it does not allow for you to be partially where the vehicle used to be because part of the base would not be where the vehicle used to be.)

Look at the diagram.

The area of the base on base A is not where the vehicle used to be. (this area of the base is only partially where the vehicle used to be) it does not allow you to be partially where the vehicle used to be, therefore this is an incorrect placement.

The area of the base on base B is where the vehicle used to be.

Thats some fine microsoft painting my friend.
As for the point of it doesnt say "entirely", I don't believe there is a rule that can be quoted to be that covers the partially in and partially out as being legal.
Its just a standard convention, which is to say that anything but totally within where the vehicle used to be is

nosferatu1001 wrote:"making stuff up".

Doomthumbs wrote:No, I just said that there is enough total square area there to justify it. I realize circles are... circles. Sadly there is no such thing as inches circled.

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

So you're going to fit 30 and a half boys on 1" bases into a 6"x4" area?...have fun.

Sure. Theres enough square area there to add up.
But since the transport limit is 20, and there are 24 square inches there (each square inch which perfectly capable of containing a 1"diameter circle plus trim) I see no reason why I couldn't "have fun".

Do you? (Barring of course people baiting me in an online forum, but thats more of an irritation than an actual barrier to my fun.)

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:
You realise you just said circles tessellate?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you don't mean to say something then don't say it.

So you've said. I can read.

The transport limit on a battlewagon is? Still 20. So with 24"^2, that leaves room for 4 more 'real space' orks than can actually fit in there.

or 30.5 if you want to fully utilize your imagination and WMS.

Edit: Any way you slice it, my urine is still being projected way further than yours in this scenario.

Doomthumbs wrote:So you've said. I can read.

The transport limit on a battlewagon is? Still 20. So with 24"^2, that leaves room for 4 more 'real space' orks than can actually fit in there.

Okay, now fit 11 boyz and a large-based IC completely within the 2x2 footprint of a last edition ork trukk.

ChrisCP wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote:No, I just said that there is enough total square area there to justify it. I realize circles are... circles. Sadly there is no such thing as inches circled.

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

So you're going to fit 30 and a half boys on 1" bases into a 6"x4" area?...have fun.

nah last I checked the trukk can't Hold 30

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

nah last I checked the trukk can't Hold 30

Gorkamorka wrote:Okay, now fit 11 boyz and a large-based IC completely within the 2x2 footprint of a last edition ork trukk.

Thankfully, I don't have to. I play Nids, and I use the latest edition stuff. Keeps my FLGS store owner happy.
Only notable exception are my space hulk era carnifexen, because of the cool "mouth within a mouth" thing they have goin' on. Makes up for the fact that they're just a little bigger than my hive guard.

Edit: Yes, I AM well aware that there is no way to take more than 20 orks in a battlewagon. "30.5" is just 24/0.785. Stop quoting that like I'm trying to take 30.5 orcs, because thats not whats going on here. That number is cited for pure 'wow, yeah theres DEFINATELY space for 20' purposes only.
Who takes half an ork, anyway?

Doomthumbs wrote:
My battlewagon measures 4 inches by 6 inches, yours may be more.
...
I play Nids, and I use the latest edition stuff.

Now I'm just confused.

doomthumbs wrote:
Edit: Any way you slice it, my urine is still being projected way further than yours in this scenario.

Real classy, considering you were wrong in any practical sense.

Gorkamorka wrote:Now I'm just confused.

You shouldnt be... I totally take my Trygons in vendettas, almost every time. And I embark my doom of malantai in a landraider, so his effect gets to be measured from the hull like a mek's KFF. So why not use battlewagons for my genestealers?

Oh, wait. No, as a rational non cheater, the only way I can play nids AND have a battlewagon would be either:
a) I play orks as well, occasionally (this is the actual option)
b) Genestealer cult orks. (What I'd like to convert, maybe, prolly not)

All that other stuff, I did make up. You can quote me on that. I totally make stuff up occasionally.

Edit: How am I wrong in ANY practical sense that 20 orks fit in a 24"^2 space?
Hint: I'm not.

Doomthumbs wrote:
Edit: How am I wrong in ANY practical sense that 20 orks fit in a 24"^2 space?
Hint: I'm not.

Changing your argument from "thats enough space for 30 and a half boys." when it was pointed out you were wrong doesn't suddenly mean you were right all along.
Hint: It's not enough space for 30 and a half boyz, no matter how you arrange them. Since if we're using boyz as you specified, they are on circular bases... and circles don't tessellate, as has been pointed out.

Edit:
"or 30.5 if you want to fully utilize your imagination and WMS."
Hint: Other models are impassable terrain, and the rules state "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain". Wrong again.

Uh huh..
I'm not changing anything. Again, 30.5 is just the number you get if you divide 24 by 0.785. Nothing else. I even said that it only worked using WMS and "Imagination". Quote me where it says I have to have the base flat on the table, since you're keen to go that route.

20 is the max number of orks in a battlewagon.
24 is the max that can fit into a 4"x6" area. 24 is also 4 more than 20.
So yes, 20 orks CAN fit in the crater of a battlewagon (my original statement).
Since I've never said anything to the contrary, how am I changing anything?
Hint: I'm not.

Since you aren't asking questions, why am I being provided with a hint as to the answer of a nonexistant question?
Hint: Some people are denser than neutron stars.

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

General Fuzzum wrote:1. It is definitely up to the player to determine whether or not a piece of terrain is "area terrain"; this goes for a crater.

Craters are in the list of terrain items that the rules mention in the "not area terrain" category, the reason being that they have a defined edge. Though it should be noted that while ruins, as sold by GW, have a defined edge, they are specifically defined as area terrain.

General Fuzzum wrote:
2. The word "inside" is totally up for debate. If you have one foot inside a house, and the other on the sidewalk, you are both inside and not inside the house.

I think most people would say you have a foot inside the house. It is a very artificial situation, like when you go to the Greenwich Meridian and stand astride the line so you can be half in the east and half in the west at the same time.

No-one says they are out of the swimming pool when they are swimming around with their head out of the water

General Fuzzum wrote:
3. As is the classic case of this forum, just because something isn't mentioned in the rules as being explicitly forbidden, doesn't mean that it is acceptable.

Indeed.

@Nosferatu -- You assume a requirement that the rules need to say "entirely within" in order to justify something being "in" a position when it is 99% outside of it.

The rules are too ill defined to allow of this degree of discrimination.

Which was the point - the rules make no requirement to be entirely within, so if you can measure to the models base, and measure to show that it is inside the footprint, according to the rules you ARE placed within the footprint. Its under the rules for measuring to models.

DR - you have still made up a requirement to be entirely within, and keep repeating the same argument frmo the last thread which was proven wrong. I have already proven you wrong, again, in this thread.

Mahtamori wrote:Before this turns into a flame war, I hope everyone involved realizes that it's often impossible to place all models entirely within a Xeno transport's footprint. Try placing 12 25mm models entirely within the footprint of a Falcon.

Remember that GW doesn't write rules for tournaments, so you have to be somewhat adaptable. In this case you place as many models as is possible within the vehicle's radius. It does sound like the OP's opponent cheated - intentionally or otherwise is impossible to say, however.

This

Like

Doomthumbs, regardless of how you'd like to spin it, the fact is, in the sentence, "place the models where the vehicle used to be," there is no qualifier. None.

Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Saying anything other than this is adding a qualifier where there previously was none. It's that simple.

If the entire area of the base had to be within anything in order to gain its benefits/detriments, you'd never be able to claim a cover save as long as the tiniest sliver of your model's base was outside of the area terrain. You'd never have to take a dangerous terrain test if your jump infantry just jumped into difficult terrain, as long as the tiniest sliver was outside of the terrain. You'd never be able to disembark properly from a vehicle, since it's very hard to fit 20 Boyz within 2" of the access points on a Battlewagon with an 'Ard Case. Not that I'd ever take an 'Ard Case on my Wagons, just saying. And don't get me started on Necron Monolith portals...

What a bunch of TFG cheaters...seriously. So glad I don't have to play a game with any of you lot thinking 'inside' means only partially inside.

Except that is exactly what it means.

It's not being "TFG" OR "Cheating" if you are actually following the rules.

SaintHazard wrote:Doomthumbs, regardless of how you'd like to spin it, the fact is, in the sentence, "place the models where the vehicle used to be," there is no qualifier. None.

Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Saying anything other than this is adding a qualifier where there previously was none. It's that simple.

You're actually shooting down your own argument down, inside the same post. That's really quite spectacular.

if we could avoid calling each other cheats and so when we're debating the, clearly, super serious issue of the exact placement of plastic toy soldiers that'd be super.

Would you like to point out where, or would you like to continue making unfounded blanket statements about my posts?

From a purely logical standpoint:

Say you have a circle. You place one foot inside the circle, and one foot outside the circle.

True or false: you are inside the circle. True.

True or false: you are outside the circle. True.

What are you required to be? Inside the circle.

Are you required to be "ONLY inside the circle?" No. Are you required to be "entirely inside the circle?" No. Are you required to be "not outside the circle?" No.

You are required to be "inside the circle." Since you're both "inside the circle" and "outside the circle..."

Requirements met.

I really don't see how this is difficult to understand?

Rymafyr wrote:What a bunch of cheaters...seriously. So glad I don't have to play a game with any of you lot thinking 'inside' means only partially inside.

SaintHazard wrote:Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Seriously. Sure, putting a pinky toe inside the crater is still technically inside the crater, but if you've done so to confer an advantage to yourself as opposed to putting your models all the way inside the crater, you're being exactly the kind of player that everyone wants to go home as soon as they show their face around the store. If your vehicle is exploding, obviously the other player is doing well that game. Well enough to blow up your vehicle. So I guess you better rob him of doing any better by skirting the rule on a technicality, right? You're meeting the reqs, sure, but 'inside the circle' truly doesn't even begin to cover
what else you are' if you're playing like that. Seriously, the rule says 'where the vehicle used to be'. Since you're following a general convention in your insistence that a pinky toe inside the circle is still inside, and not an actual rule, I struggle to see how you occupy a moral high ground. In fact, you're most likely having the player across the table roll their eyes at you. I know I am.

Additionally, I'm noticing a lot of people putting others down because they won't conform to their own standards. Condescending to them even, claiming first that they're making stuff up, followed by mocking the clarification as a change from the original, clawing at straws to prove you wrong when they themselves are 'right' by no stretch of the imagination. There is NO RULE in the book that covers whether they need to be 'entirely' vs 'partially' in the space where the vehicle was in order to be 'where the vehicle was', but I'm sure that whatever side you choose, people like this will take the opposite stance, harry you down to where you no longer care or want to hear it, and then relate to their cat how right they were today and that the other guys were totally wrong. Purr? Yes kitty, I wish we had real friends too.

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you required to be "ONLY inside the circle?"

Yes.

Where does it say you are allowed to be outside of the circle at all ? In this situation.

If does not say that you are allowed to be outside of the circle then you are exceeeding the permitted parameters of the established situation and therefore you are not following logic at all, you are in fact making a supposition that alters the defined setting of the situation.

This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, no matter how much you wish to stretch the examples given.


And most of your arguments claiming to use linguistics are ridiculous : If you are charged $10 for an item and you only pay $1 you have paid for the item, according to the interesting bent of logic you're suggesting. Clearly this isn't the case right ?


I really don't see how this is difficult to understand.

Doomthumbs.

Cool your balls. The personal attacks are entirely unnecessary and out of line, especially considering I haven't thrown a single one at you.

First off, I never said this is how I play it. I said this is what the rules say, which is exactly what you just said. How we play it hasn't even come into this conversation from my angle yet. I personally place my damn infantry in the center of the footprint because I'm a good sportsman, and at the end of the day, I'm here to have fun. In a tournament setting, I'd consider placing them on the very edge, but that's a whole different animal.

Second, you're calling Nos (and me, though undeserved? I can't tell) out on his condescending tone when you just took a major step in that direction yourself by calling me all sorts of nasty things instead of responding calmly and rationally to the points I put forward. If you think it's hard to take Nos seriously, try putting yourself in my shoes. It's even worse from over here - at least Nos isn't pretending to be above such standards. You are.

Take a chill pill, take a breath of reality, realize that you're simply being rude, and please refrain from doing so in the future (better, red?). Thanks.

I would not play it that way, but as the rules are worded Saint's argument makes sense - even if it ispushing it a bit. I have never placed my models outside the crater, but using the boundless power of my imagination it is not a stretch that maybe one of the passengers might end up sprawled to the side of the vehicle..then again one might also be blown straight across the board...

I'll keep playing it inside the crater and if my opponent wants to work the system a bit, I'll be sure those berserkers are out of charge range next time they blow one of my transports up...

reds8n wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you required to be "ONLY inside the circle?"

Yes.

Where does it say you are allowed to be outside of the circle at all ? In this situation.

If does not say that you are allowed to be outside of the circle then you are exceeeding the permitted parameters of the established situation and therefore you are not following logic at all, you are in fact making a supposition that alters the defined setting of the situation.

This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, no matter how much you wish to stretch the examples given.


And most of your arguments claiming to use linguistics are ridiculous : If you are charged $10 for an item and you only pay $1 you have paid for the item, according to the interesting bent of logic you're suggesting. Clearly this isn't the case right ?


I really don't see how this is difficult to understand.

So because it doesn't say you're allowed to be outside the circle, you may not in any case be outside of the circle, even though the only requirement actually explicitly stated has been met?

Let me just point out how that logic changes the game: Area terrain never confers a cover save unless the model is entirely 100% inside of it. Dangerous terrain never forces a test unless the entire model is 100% inside of it. You can never assault unless 100% of your base can touch or occupy the space of 100% of the assaulted model's base (meaning assault never works). You can't shoot unless you can draw range on 100% of the opponent's model's base. Vehicles can never pivot, because 100% of the vehicle has to pivot, and pivoting is impossible without a pivot point - a point that does not pivot, as everything else is pivoting around it.

I could go on, but your assertion effectively breaks the game.

If one wishes to (claim) that they are arguing from a purely logical POV then yes... it would be unwise for posters to do so then ? Especially, perhaps, if their logic isn't quite up to scratch.

So because it doesn't say you're allowed to be outside the circle, you may not in any case be outside of the circle, even though the only requirement actually explicitly stated has been met?

If one wishes to genuinely argue from the oft lauded yet totally ridiculous RAW perspective then you may not deploy outside of the circle as this is not written as an option for you.

As some, wise, people stated earlier the game isn't written or played to an exacting nTH degree.. and I'd imagine it would be totally unenjoyable if it was even possible to do so.


IMO, the only way you can have a workable situation here is if one treats this situation, more or less, as if one is using the normal deploying from a vehicle rules, so indeed a model could have the back of its base "inside" the required area and qualify.

But, as I hope you can see, this is not the RAW as such and involves the use of elements not directly covered in your above statements, as you seemed to be claiming.

And anyway, it's much cooler to have your models positioned as if they're charging out of the burning wreck of their vehicle, ready to sell tehmselves dearly or to seek revenge.

Well yeah, that last part goes without saying.

From a purely logical standpoint, omission is not restriction, and if a single requirement is explicitly given, and met, regardless of what else is happening, you're kosher.

But I can see your point.

Anyway, at this point it's getting circular, and I'm content to agree to disagree with a side of "discuss it with your opponent if it comes up, and be a good sportsman by taking the less advantageous route if they have an issue."

SaintHazard wrote:Vehicles can never pivot, because 100% of the vehicle has to pivot, and pivoting is impossible without a pivot point - a point that does not pivot, as everything else is pivoting around it.

reds8n wrote:This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, no matter how much you wish to stretch the examples given.

Big Rule Book page 57 wrote:
Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their center point

So after 'cooling my balls' using the tears of the unrighteous as lubricant, I noticed you made some more stuff up. Most heinous of which is your assertion about vehicles, which the rulebook clearly gives a pivot point to. Since the other examples you've given are all predicated on a system that requires a general consensus between players to know what those terms all mean, it still comes down to whether or not you're a decent opponent as far as other people wanting to play with you goes. With the exception of the area terrain providing cover, all of your examples are refuted by the rulebook. And the cover thing is too, since if its unclear you just modify the save by -1.

So you're still bending the rules to suit you while pointing fingers at everyone else and screaming that they're wrong because they don't think as you do. This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, but I find myself wanting to try and make it so by placing opponents of this type in a box. Are they dead or alive? Well until we look, its both. But before we DO look, lets play another game of 40k and wonder what that odd scratching noise is.

Hey, cool, there's that condescension again.

I'm pretty content to pretend your posts don't exist until you stop doing that. It's annoying.

SaintHazard wrote:Hey, cool, there's that condescension again.

Without noting the irony in that, no wait, there it is.
Can't we all just get along?
And put our models where the vehicle used to be, and not also where it did not use to be?

Yes, I was never a very good firefighter.

That said, I've already said I'm perfectly content putting my infantry entirely where the vehicle used to be, and not at all where it never was.

Ed_Bodger wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Before this turns into a flame war, I hope everyone involved realizes that it's often impossible to place all models entirely within a Xeno transport's footprint. Try placing 12 25mm models entirely within the footprint of a Falcon.

Remember that GW doesn't write rules for tournaments, so you have to be somewhat adaptable. In this case you place as many models as is possible within the vehicle's radius. It does sound like the OP's opponent cheated - intentionally or otherwise is impossible to say, however.

This

Like

It's just about possible.

That one part of the base needs to be within the specified area is most consistent with how ranges and areas are measured in other parts of the game, such as finding if a unit is range to be fired on. I really have a hard a time seeing why this is such an issue. If they really wanted placement within the footprint of a vehicle to be so widely different from placement of deployment, measuring firing distance, hits by templates/blasts, deep strike mishaps, etc, etc.. It'd probably say so explicitly.

Granted that is probably giving GW rules writers to much credit, but still putting aside any ambiguity (I really don't see it) all the precedence in the other parts of the rules don't indicate any reasons that "inside" means "entirely inside" that just isn't how things are done for the most part.

SaintHazard wrote:Yes, I was never a very good firefighter.

That said, I've already said I'm perfectly content putting my infantry entirely where the vehicle used to be, and not at all where it never was.

I love it. Since we've done the pre game haggling, I'd love to have a game or two with you using these rules.

Chongara wrote:If they really wanted placement within the footprint of a vehicle to be so widely different from placement of deployment, measuring firing distance, hits by templates/blasts, deep strike mishaps, etc, etc.. It'd probably say so explicitly.

But they do say so explicitly. The damaged- wrecked result on the table results in models deploying from the vehicle if they can. The exploding result doesnt say that they deploy into the crater, just that they get they get put there.

SaintHazard wrote: regardless of what else is happening, you're kosher.

Don't go bringing religion into it, there's even more RAI vs. RAW arguments there than here !

I would "suggest" that it would be a good idea if both sides laid off the general snippiness and cheap shots : as a general rule unless a person is typing out the exact word for word version of a rule then please allow them the odd digression from the strict wording and attribute this to human frailty and imperfection rather than "heinous" lies or somesuch.

It IS just 40K.

Well then what are we going to do with all this extra cheese on our post explosion hamburger?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
It IS just 40K.

Big Rule Book, page iv wrote: Warhammer 40,000 is far, far more than just a game.

Maybe some people just stopped reading there.

Fondue.

Doomthumbs wrote:But they do say so explicitly. The damaged- wrecked result on the table results in models deploying from the vehicle if they can. The exploding result doesnt say that they deploy into the crater, just that they get they get put there.

I understand that. The crater is an area. The unit is something being put within that area. Generally speaking, in 40k something is considered within that area when it is touching that area.

A unit is within in range of a shooting attack, that is the area that valid targets exist in, so long as part of one model is.
A model is within the range of a template or blast so long as part of it is touching the respective green plastic.
A unit is considered to suffer a mishap for deep striking so long as one part of one past of one model is in an illegal position.
A unit is considered to be within range of an area affect, so long as one model is.

That is, when you have an area (the crater) the unit is within that crater so long as part of it is. That's just what consist with game objects being defined as "within" an area.

Now if I was personally making the rule(ing) I'd probably want it such that each model composing the unit must be within the area (that means the base of each model must be at least partially in contact with the crater) however the rules don't really point at that. It's a bit counter intuitive I'll admit, given what the rule is supposedly representing.

However when it comes to a unit (a game object) being within the crater (a game space) it's most consistent with other rules that the given object is within the given space so long as part of it is within the given space. That's just how objects in areas are overwhelmingly defined in 40k, and nothing cited so far makes it any different.

SaintHazard wrote:Doomthumbs, regardless of how you'd like to spin it, the fact is, in the sentence, "place the models where the vehicle used to be," there is no qualifier. None.

Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Saying anything other than this is adding a qualifier where there previously was none. It's that simple.

If the entire area of the base had to be within anything in order to gain its benefits/detriments, you'd never be able to claim a cover save as long as the tiniest sliver of your model's base was outside of the area terrain. You'd never have to take a dangerous terrain test if your jump infantry just jumped into difficult terrain, as long as the tiniest sliver was outside of the terrain. You'd never be able to disembark properly from a vehicle, since it's very hard to fit 20 Boyz within 2" of the access points on a Battlewagon with an 'Ard Case. Not that I'd ever take an 'Ard Case on my Wagons, just saying. And don't get me started on Necron Monolith portals...

Saint, your examples given really kill your argument since those instances SPECIFICALLY provide for partially being in cover or with the qualifier of upon entering difficult/dangerous terrain. Those examples give specific permission for placing a model partially in cover and getting a cover save and that entering difficult/dangerous terrain forces a test.

The qualifier in the rule is inside the area occupied by where the vehicle used to be. So lets look at it as follows:

Survivor outside where the vehicle used to be: The rule is not being followed.
Survivor half inside/half outside where the vehicle used to be: The rule is not being followed.
Survivor inside where the vehicle used to be: The rule is being followed.

No matter how much you want to argue about semantics for your point, you can not say your model is inside the area where the vehicle used to be WITHOUT completely disregarding that the model is also outside the where the vehicle used to be. At that point, you are not following RAW since the rule specifies "inside". Nothing more, nothing less, nothing in-between, just "inside".

Now for the pinky toe in the house. are you inside or is your toe inside. Again people are trying to equate real world logic to the World of Warhammer 40k. Now say that "you" are defined to be your entire body as per the BRB in that the model occupies the area of its base. Sticking your toe inside the house would not qualify as "you" being inside the house. Your entire body would have to be inside the house to qualify as "you" being inside the house.

So back to the actual instance. In this picture, the red box represents the Berserker Rhino and the black circles represent where he placed his models after I destroyed the vehicle with a destroyed-exploded result:


He claimed that they were on the edge of the crater with this placement and thus "inside" the area where the vehicle used to be. For those that asked, he was running Khorne sacred number 8 sized Berserker squads.

Brother Ramses wrote:


He claimed that they were on the edge of the crater with this placement and thus "inside" the area where the vehicle used to be. For those that asked, he was running Khorne sacred number 8 sized Berserker squads.

Personally, that wouldn't have gotten even a raised eyebrow from me, any more than the claim all those models were getting hit if that was some kind of strange big square blast marker. It seems very much in line with how the rules as a whole work. If it was some big conga line out a whole foot from where the rhino was, yeah it'd seem like they were torturing the rules (but even then I'm not sure it'd actually be a real violation of them).

Chongara wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote:But they do say so explicitly. The damaged- wrecked result on the table results in models deploying from the vehicle if they can. The exploding result doesnt say that they deploy into the crater, just that they get they get put there.

I understand that. The crater is an area. The unit is something being put within that area. Generally speaking, in 40k something is considered within that area when it is touching that area.

A unit is within in range of a shooting attack, that is the area that valid targets exist in, so long as part of one model is.
A model is within the range of a template or blast so long as part of it is touching the respective green plastic.
A unit is considered to suffer a mishap for deep striking so long as one part of one past of one model is in an illegal position.
A unit is considered to be within range of an area affect, so long as one model is.

That is, when you have an area (the crater) the unit is within that crater so long as part of it is. That's just what consist with game objects being defined as "within" an area.

Now if I was personally making the rule(ing) I'd probably want it such that each model composing the unit must be within the area (that means the base of each model must be at least partially in contact with the crater) however the rules don't really point at that. It's a bit counter intuitive I'll admit, given what the rule is supposedly representing.

However when it comes to a unit (a game object) being within the crater (a game space) it's most consistent with other rules that the given object is within the given space so long as part of it is within the given space. That's just how objects in areas are overwhelmingly defined in 40k, and nothing cited so far makes it any different.

Every example you have given has specific instructions that permit for those circumstances in which you are arguing. You are pointing out rules that specify that if one model is in range, the whole unit is. GW wrote that specifically. Same with the template weapons, GW specficially pointed it out. In this instance they did not point it out. So you can either be the GW love/hate fan boy and say it is due to crappy GW writing or you take it as written that inside means inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:


He claimed that they were on the edge of the crater with this placement and thus "inside" the area where the vehicle used to be. For those that asked, he was running Khorne sacred number 8 sized Berserker squads.

Personally, that wouldn't have gotten even a raised eyebrow from me, any more than the claim all those models were getting hit if that was some kind of strange big square blast marker. It seems very much in line with how the rules as a whole work. If it was some big conga line out a whole foot from where the rhino was, yeah it'd seem like they were torturing the rules (but even then I'm not sure it'd actually be a real violation of them).

Would you care to explain how those survivors are placed INSIDE where the vehicle used to be?

Brother Ramses wrote:Would you care to explain how those survivors are placed INSIDE where the vehicle used to be?

Part of their base is. I feel that this is most consistent with how occupying the areas has been defined in other parts of the rules. Yes you can argue for some ambiguity in this rule and that has been going back and forth for 3 pages so there really isn't any need for me retread it. I'm saying that ambiguity aside, that "at least partially inside" is the interpretation that leads to to the rule set being most cohesive. As such it's the interpretation I prefer, given neither case is Iron-Clad.

How is this different than measuring distances between 2 units?

Chongara wrote:If it was some big conga line out a whole foot from where the rhino was, yeah it'd seem like they were torturing the rules (but even then I'm not sure it'd actually be a real violation of them).

I'm pretty sure a foot outside the crater is fair game for me asking what the hell you're talking about and laughing as I make you move them to a legal spot. Not only is that not just where the vehicle was and some extra cheese, thats the entire holdings of the Sargento family. Again, Ramses' point is that the rule says 'where the vehicle used to be'. Pinky toe inside is still technically inside , but the other nine toes are where the vehicle was not. I'd compromise the same way I do for units in area cover. 50% of the unit needs to be in cover to get a cover save for the unit, so models only count toward that 50% if 50% of their base is in the terrain. Thats a houserule I try and maintain, but it serves me pretty well.
There isn't ever going to be a way that destroying your foe will ingratiate yourself to him, especially in a game where armies can cost upwards of a thousand US dollars. That hurts, but what makes people actually upset is when they deal with people that are bending the rule to suit them.
So why be that guy? I realize you like 40k. I like 40k. We registered here so we can talk about how much we love 40k.
So why try and make it into a rules debate unless thats something both players enjoy doing? When winning is more important than friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Kirsanth, Because the rules for that say any part of the base. Rules for explodes do not. (Technically)

Doomthumbs wrote:Kirsanth, Because the rules for that say any part of the base. Rules for explodes do not. (Technically)

I am not certain I agree with that interpretation--the rules do not need to re-iterate the already established rules for measuring distances.

Doomthumbs wrote:That hurts, but what makes people actually upset is when they deal with people that are bending the rule to suit them.
So why be that guy? I realize you like 40k. I like 40k. We registered here so we can talk about how much we love 40k.
So why try and make it into a rules debate unless thats something both players enjoy doing? When winning is more important than friends.

I certainly wouldn't try to play a conga line and would call somebody who did on it on being silly,though that may honestly be the RaW of it. RaW is often quite goofy.

However, I don't see the situation pictured a bending the rules. I would not even question that it if my opponent did it. Reflecting, I think I may have had opponents play it that way in the past. It never even occurred to me in the slightest that it might violation even of the spirit of the rules. I look at that and no part of me sees it as anything but totally reasonable. It's certainly more reasonable than some of the *actual* rules out there, at least in my mind. Who knows maybe I'm just strange. I'm just saying if I ran into the same situation as the OP, I'd give my opponent a nod and a "Smart Move" when I realized I was out of assault range. My reasoning for this I've already explained.

Except that you are giving specific instructions for weapon templates that partially cover the base of a model. You are given permission to include those models that are partially under the template.

If the template rules only said models covered, models partially covered would not be included because you are not given permission to include those models.

In this instance you are told to place the survivors inside the area where the vehicle used to be. You are not given permission to partially place them inside. You are told to place them inside.

Brother Ramses wrote:
In this instance you are told to place the survivors inside the area where the vehicle used to be. You are not given permission to partially place them inside. You are told to place them inside.

Therein lies the ambiguity. They don't define "Inside" in this particular case.

We have a plain English definition of "Inside" which is really kind of vague and subjective in this case, not very helpful.

We have a definition of inside which is established in other rules (but not specifically cited here) and appears rather consistently throughout the rules that care about what is in what. I like using that one because it makes things cohesive.

The problem is there is there is no definition of "Inside" here, that can be definitively pointed to as "Wholly Inside". For some definitions of "Inside" (particularly those used elsewhere in the game) is equivalent to "at least partially inside". In the case where you are using a definition for inside as "At least partially inside" that you are partially outside isn't relevant, since you're still doing what you have permission to do and nothing else.

Ultimately for this to be a shut-and-closed case, we'd either have to have "Inside" as a defined term or have language that clarifies other restrictions beyond being inside". Neither of those things are the case. So we're left to make a reasonable interpretation of what "Inside" means, for me that is what is most consistent with how it is defined elsewhere. Defining "inside" as "Wholly Inside" is not entirely unreasonable either and I can see how it would be intuitive for some people, It's just not the I think makes the most sense.

Its not "inside" its just "where the vehicle used to be". Inside is an added word to the rule, so anything you or I could add to the discussion based on our interpretation of inside is, well, wrong.

More valid to the point is that you're told to put the model where the vehicle was. Area terrain requires models be inside the cover. this rule doesn't require them to be inside, just 'where the vehicle was'. Not where it was and someplace else additionally.
And again, since its not specific, its open to interpretation. But at least interpret the right words.

Doomthumbs wrote:Its not "inside" its just "where the vehicle used to be". Inside is an added word to the rule, so anything you or I could add to the discussion based on our interpretation of inside is, well, wrong.

More valid to the point is that you're told to put the model where the vehicle was. Area terrain requires models be inside the cover. this rule doesn't require them to be inside, just 'where the vehicle was'. Not where it was and someplace else additionally.
And again, since its not specific, its open to interpretation. But at least interpret the right words.

Fair enough, I was speaking too loosely. However "where the vehicle used to be" still boils down to an issue of occupying an area, so "where the vehicle used to be" is functionally equivalent to "Inside" here, ("Inside" is just easier to type).

Ultimately there is some area "Where the vehicle used to be" that a certain entity (The Unit) must occupy. The same rational all still applies, though you wind up with a third possible interpretation.

That the unit must completely and perfectly fill the space occupied by the vehicle, and that placement of units that does not cause them to occupy precisely the same space (and all of the same place) is an illegal placement. Of course that interpretation is silly in the extreme, but it it's one possible way to read it. I only point it out to show how subjective this all is.

Again, since the issue is one of space occupancy I like the interpenetration that most closely matches the other rules for occupying a space, since we don't have definitive wording. It's not the only interpenetration that is valid under the wording, I just think it makes the most sense.

Doomthumbs wrote:Its not "inside" its just "where the vehicle used to be".

So you are measuring the distance between two models, one of which is removed.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:I am not certain I agree with that interpretation--the rules do not need to re-iterate the already established rules for measuring distances.

You're not measuring distances to put them in the space that the vehicle was occupying. The distances are there already, outlined by the vehicle. The rules for measuring between two units say that you
"Use the closest point of their bases as your reference points." Brb page 3 Measuring Distances.

So since measuring distances says use any point on the base, that is so very different from placing the survivors where the vehicle used to be. Since its referencing whole models and not just part of the base, like the measuring rules.

kirsanth wrote:How is this different than measuring distances between 2 units?

Because the rules for measuring between 2 units say to use the closest part of each base (or something similar)

SaintHazard wrote:Doomthumbs, regardless of how you'd like to spin it, the fact is, in the sentence, "place the models where the vehicle used to be," there is no qualifier. None.

Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Saying anything other than this is adding a qualifier where there previously was none. It's that simple.

There is a qualifier if you know what the area of the base is. In this case 0.785 inches squared (the whole thing)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which was the point - the rules make no requirement to be entirely within, so if you can measure to the models base, and measure to show that it is inside the footprint, according to the rules you ARE placed within the footprint. Its under the rules for measuring to models.

DR - you have still made up a requirement to be entirely within, and keep repeating the same argument frmo the last thread which was proven wrong. I have already proven you wrong, again, in this thread.

I have not made up any requirement.

The model must be where the vehicle used to be.

0.785 Inches squared is the area of the base. The area of the base must be where the vehicle used to be. If the area of the base, which is 0.785 Inches squared, is not where the vehicle used to be, then you have not followed the rule for needing to be where the vehicle used to be.

By default, area of the base, includes every last bit of the area of the base, to say otherwise is not correct.

Thus Area = the whole area by definition.

How is this proven wrong? Is the area of the base not inclusive of the whole base?

By your logic the area of the base does not include the whole base, which does not make sense to me.

Except that isnt what the rules say. Not at all. That is your fabrication.

there are NO additional restrictions on placing the model "where the vehicle used to be". None. Your "default" is fabricated, by the way - you have neither a linguistic, mathematic or logical reason to back up that statement. None.

If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

DeathReaper wrote:I have not made up any requirement.

Not entirely. . .but then again, the word entirely is not mentioned.


Is the ruler on the table?

Hint: Nothing says "entirely" in the rules or in my question.

Kirsanth - it probably isnt worth it, "we've" been here before and been ducked, avoided, made nonsense of (supported and not supported at the same time was someones answer) and so on.

The same flawed argument was made in previous threads, and the same fabricated requirement was used, despite the poster being entirely unable to provide any justifcation for it (notice the "default" position above, which is a change to the argument but again has entirely no basis in the rules, language or anything else objective, it is fabrication dressed up as fact) - and nothing changed.

I was mostly happy I had the image ready for pasting from the other thread.

Or did I post it here first this time?

Oh well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that isnt what the rules say. Not at all. That is your fabrication.

there are NO additional restrictions on placing the model "where the vehicle used to be". None. Your "default" is fabricated, by the way - you have neither a linguistic, mathematic or logical reason to back up that statement. None.

If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

There is no congruency there at ALL. There is no measuring to be done in this scenario AT ALL. you're placing the survivors (whole models) where the vehicle was and that is it. If the survivors are simultaneously where the vehicle is not, you've broken the rule as it appears on pg 67. I still have yet to see you quote a rule stating otherwise.
This is YOUR fabrication, and I checked the other thread and you made stuff up there, too.
There is no rule for what is being discussed here, so the models have to be placed only where it says they can be placed. Where the vehicle was. and since it mentions nothing of a base, you have to assume its a whole model.
Nothing made up there, except your response, I'm sure.
And since Reds8n has already "suggested" that we keep the tone here civil, I would ask politely that you do the same.

Kirsanth, thats a great picture, but remove the table (pretend its the vehicle). Now put the ruler where the table used to be.
Use the hammer to relieve the headache.

Edit: The bit of string in the picture can be used to wrap this thread up with a nice little bow.

Doomthumbs wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that isnt what the rules say. Not at all. That is your fabrication.

there are NO additional restrictions on placing the model "where the vehicle used to be". None. Your "default" is fabricated, by the way - you have neither a linguistic, mathematic or logical reason to back up that statement. None.

If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

You're placing the survivors (whole models) where the vehicle was and that is it. If the survivors are simultaneously where the vehicle is not, you've broken the rule as it appears on pg 67. I still have yet to see you quote a rule stating otherwise.

Really? The rule says that?
Or does it say to place them where the vehicle was, which you just admitted is included in partial placements, with no mention of them simultaneously being partially not there being illegal if the given requirement is met?

Accusing people who are adding no unwritten requirements to the text of being the people fabricating rules is... an odd position to take.

Gorkamorka wrote:Accusing people who are adding no unwritten requirements to the text of being the people fabricating rules is... an odd position to take.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

Yeah, pretty much.

Gorkamorka wrote:Really? The rule says that?
Or does it say to place them where the vehicle was, which you just admitted is included in partial placements, with no mention of them simultaneously being partially not there being illegal if the given requirement is met?

I admitted nothing except saying partial placement is legal is adding stuff to the rule. "Fabricating" Nos calls it.
And then something rude gets said, I'm unsure of how the in between works.

Doomthumbs wrote:Kirsanth, thats a great picture, but remove the table (pretend its the vehicle). Now put the ruler where the table used to be.

If the rules suggested anything similar, I would agree with your point.
I think.

I am somewhat confused by your suggestion, however.
You are suggesting adding layers that are not stated simply to prove an interpretation.

The rules only ask if the models are within the area that was taken by the vehicle.
They do not prevent the model ALSO being outside of the area.

In fact, you are given allowance to measure to and from any part of the base when measuring. There is no requirement for the entire area.

Edits for grammar and spelling.

The fact that the answer needed a qualifyer basically proves my point, however.

Again, there is no measuring taking place.
I'm not the one adding anything. Saying you can partially place them is the adding something. (which I'm not saying, now or ever).
You citing the measuring rules is adding something. "Layers" of made up stuff.

Doomthumbs wrote: Saying you can partially place them is the adding something. (which I'm not saying, now or ever).

The idea that "partially" is adding something, while "entirely" is not is farcical.

DT - then quote them, and prove them. Or retract your unfounded assertion. Your choice.

You also missed the WAS. Again, please retract your false assertion, or prove it true.

So that is two actions you need to take. I'll wait. Amusingly you quote that this thread is to stay civil, then assert false statements, with no backing at all, about a poster. No irony there, none at all.

To sum up: you are asserting a requirement to be "entirely" within, yet none such restriction exists within the rules. I am proposing that you follow exactly the same method as every other instance where you need to find out if you are somewhere - you measure to the base.

One requires making up rules (specifically either adding restrictions, or making up a "default", neither of which has ANY basis in the rules, maths or linguistics), one doesnt.

Edit: seen your later posts (distracted by TV) - no, you are adding the requirement to be "entirely", whereas the statement "within" supports BOTH entirely and partially as qualifiers.

You are restricting by stating only one is valid. This is not supported in the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirsanth - it probably isnt worth it, "we've" been here before and been ducked, avoided, made nonsense of (supported and not supported at the same time was someones answer) and so on.

The same flawed argument was made in previous threads, and the same fabricated requirement was used, despite the poster being entirely unable to provide any justifcation for it (notice the "default" position above, which is a change to the argument but again has entirely no basis in the rules, language or anything else objective, it is fabrication dressed up as fact) - and nothing changed.

No fabricated requirement, no flawed argument. Just trying to get people to understand what area means.

We are dealing with placing the Model/Area of the base where the vehicle used to be.

The area of that rulers base is most definitely not on the table.

The rules state you must put the area of the base where the vehicle used to be. It is clear if one knows what area includes.

It says area, which is 0.785 in. Sq. anything less than 0.785 in. Sq. is not the area of the base, we have to include all parts of said area.

Since we have to include all parts of said area, then all parts of said area must be where the vehicle used to be. This is what the rules tell us to do.

DR wrote:It says area, we have to include all parts of said area.

This is the part you have made up,as no such requirement exists:
- linguistically
- mathematically
- logically

Stop making up rules, mkay?

(we all know what area means. Stop pretending otherwise)

DeathReaper wrote:we have to include all parts of said area.

The rules do not, however, say that regardless of how many times you do.

To turn your argument on its head, how possible is it for each model to be placed so that it can cover the ENTIRE area the transport took up?
That would require the same reading as you are asserting.

Shhh Kirsanth, you're applying Logic....

He's transposing "area" from the definition of a model, nos.

I'm not saying that it says entirely. It doesnt.
But YOU have yet to provide any quoted rule that says that you may place it partially in and still have it qualify as being 'where the vehicle was' as per the rules. Again, that is a convention among rational players, not a rule.
So you're making stuff up, namely quoting the measurement rules as your proof. There is NO MEASURING that is occuring in placing the surviving model where the vehicle was.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:we have to include all parts of said area.

The rules do not, however, say that regardless of how many times you do.

To turn your argument on its head, how possible is it for each model to be placed so that it can cover the ENTIRE area the transport took up?
That would require the same reading as you are asserting.

It says to place the area of the base where the vehicle used to be, it gives you a set area to place models in. (Anywhere where the vehicle used to be)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DR wrote:It says area, we have to include all parts of said area.

This is the part you have made up,as no such requirement exists:
- linguistically
- mathematically
- logically

Stop making up rules, mkay?

(we all know what area means. Stop pretending otherwise)

If you know what area means then why the questions about me making up rules?

Lets look at what the area of a models base includes...

The area is 0.785 in. Sq. anything less than 0.785 in. Sq. is not the area of the base, so the 0.785 in. Sq. must be where the vehicle used to be.

Its clearly defined.
- linguistically
- mathematically
- logically

The area of something would include all parts of said area.

Doomthumbs wrote:I'm not saying that it says entirely. It doesnt.
But YOU have yet to provide any quoted rule that says that you may place it partially in and still have it qualify as being 'where the vehicle was' as per the rules.

The first bit is why you are not correct. The second bit is why you are wrong.

There is not a qualifier on the statement. So noone can show you one.
Since there is not a qualifier on the statement, adding one or assuming one is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
It says to place the area of the base where the vehicle used to be, it gives you a set area to place models in. (Anywhere where the vehicle used to be)
. . .
The area of something would include all parts of said area.

DR - Sigh. You're still making up rules.

Namely you are requiring the ENTIRE area to be within the location, when no such additional restriction exists.

Partially OR Fully ENTIRELY satisfy the singular requirement. You cannot prove that *only* "entire area" is included (as the words are not there) and so, yet again - BOTH "entirely" AND "partially" satisfy the singular requirement.

So again: Your argument is false and requires MAKING UP RULES in order to "work". Oddly enough myself and most of the people reading this (as a wager) dont generally consider making up rules to be a good way to present a rules argument. Just saying - you may want to work on that.

DT - until you retract OR prove your unsupported and false statements you will not get a response.

I'm still not adding. Where the vehicle was is the area it was, not the area it was plus the area of your models inside's base all the way around the vehicle.
Sorry, but this is my last post on the subject until I've gone to drown the pain of explaining this in a bottle.

Ok, you caught me. Its gonna be more like 20 bottles.

Yes you are.

You are adding the word "entirely" in front of "within"

We are saying that, as the word "witihn" is not restricted (it really isnt - the lack of any words is your clue there) then BOTH "entirely" AND "partially" are allowable.

Both yourself and DR are adding the word "entirely" (or in effect doing the same, just dressed differently) to the phrase. This is making rules up.

I agree with Nos and Kirsanth on this. GW is lousy at writing rules, but as soon as anybody adds text, they are guilty as well. I place my models inside the footprint of any transports that explode, but I also believe that by the rules I am permitted to place my models outside of the footprint, just edging into said footprint. Debarking is the closest analogy rules wise, and it allows placement as long as any portion of the model's base is within 2" of an access point.

I think the guys that keep arguing otherwise should go and paint some models...

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - Sigh. You're still making up rules.

Namely you are requiring the ENTIRE area to be within the location, when no such additional restriction exists.

Partially OR Fully ENTIRELY satisfy the singular requirement. You cannot prove that *only* "entire area" is included (as the words are not there) and so, yet again - BOTH "entirely" AND "partially" satisfy the singular requirement.

So again: Your argument is false and requires MAKING UP RULES in order to "work". Oddly enough myself and most of the people reading this (as a wager) dont generally consider making up rules to be a good way to present a rules argument. Just saying - you may want to work on that.

DT - until you retract OR prove your unsupported and false statements you will not get a response.

How am i making up rules?

'The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be.' not partial, not entire, just area.

The rules do not define area, so we have to define it.

So that begs the question: What is the area of a 1 inch base?

Answer: The area of a 1 inch base is the circle that is 0.785 inches square. This defines the area.

0.785 of the base must be where the vehicle used to be. If anything less than that is not where the vehicle used to be, then you have not followed the rule.

No rules made up. just following the statement models are placed where the vehicle used to be.

Models = Area of the base = 0.785 inches square.

DeathReaper wrote:
'The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be.'

Where's this quote from?

Well technically, an advocate for my side is. (Deathreaper).
You'll note that this is an area we (deathreaper and I) disagree on.
I'm only implying that it should be there, since there is no rule for covering a partial placement.
Since I'm saying you can ONLY place it where the rules given say you can (you can only follow the rules), you have to place it "where the vehicle was" and ONLY "where the vehicle was". Now, this supports what deathreaper is saying about "Entirely". Hes just clarifying what entirely means, defining the area of a model mathematically as well as what constitutes the area of the vehicles footprint. The model does have to be in this footprint according to how the rule reads. " The surviving passengers are then placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test." Theres the whole sentence out of the book on page 67, which you've never quoted fully. I checked, and thats kinda funny.
The Point is, YOU are adding something when you say that putting the model partially inside the frame of the vehicle and mostly outside the vehicle, because its adding a supposition that you measure a distance between models, or that it in any way applies to cover in the way that it applies to models being in or out of terrain.
I have been the one to consistently argue for accepting only models being placed in the footprint (area) of the vehicle (as defined on page 56 of your rulebook) are the only models that have fully satisfied the rules as written without adding to anything (except to our post count and walls and walls of text that are boring to read back over to see how the thread looks for someone reading it the first time). The words "Entirely within" are not in the sentence "Passengers are placed entirely within where the vehicle used to be", but they should be. That goes into RAI though, and is just how I personally (and DR (DeathReaper, though I call him DR even though we've never formally met and exchanged permission for me to call him such. But he sounds smart, and DR sounds like he's a learned man. DR. Doctor. My supposed buddy DR doesnt need a . in his title for his doctorate, just like Dr Pepper, and that guy is a certified hero) would play the rule. But they also don't need to be entirely within that sentence, or even the rulebook. Anything else than what I stated above is just NOT how it says it in the rulebook. Some say it isn't even in the spirit of the game. Burying the main point under piles and piles of text tortures people worse than dark eldar. Why discuss anything further than:

You can't place the models anywhere outside of the hull area of the tank once the tank is removed (weapons and antennae dont count).

The only good thing that I've seen come out of this thread is the idea to make a felt pad(s) that encompasses the area of several common tanks . I'm gonna make some for rhino, landraider, battlewagon, trukk, and wave serpent, three each should be enough; anything more than 15 pieces of felt seems excessive. So I can clearly define where it is legal to put the troops once the box has been melted open with bio acid and shot through with man sized spines. That, and I think I made a friend.

The problem is that, really, without that word "entirely" that keeps being thrown around, "partially" is valid--thus the ruler re-appearing.

You can disagree if you like, but that does not change the way that words work.

It is not allowed, because as a permissive rules set, you need to be able to quote a rule that will let you do it partially. You need permission from the rulebook to do anything than put it in that footprint, because anything else is also "Not where the vehicle was".

And theres no permission for that.

Doomthumbs wrote:It is not allowed, because as a permissive rules set, you need to be able to quote a rule that requires you do it entirely. You need permission from the rulebook to do anything than put it in that footprint, because partially within the area is "where the vehicle was".

Fixed.

See: Ruler images + English.

The ruler is on the table--the measuring required can be achieved.

The ruler is also off the table, meaning it is also satisfying the requirements for removing it from the table.

Doomthumbs wrote:The ruler is also off the table, meaning it is also satisfying the requirements for removing it from the table.

The question is not is the ruler off the table, however--or no one could ever have any issue with your statements here.

As written, however. . . .

And your ruler pic has nothing to do with just about anything. Thats a nice trick of physics. I can balance a washcloth, so what?

What does the Rulebook say?

Doomthumbs wrote: The words "Entirely within" are not in the sentence "Passengers are placed entirely within where the vehicle used to be", but they should be. That goes into RAI though, and is just how I personally ....

This is, as you've admitted, how you want the rules to be written or your interpretation of intention.

We have shown quite happily that if one places the model on the edge of the crater one has indeed put the model where the vehicle used to be.

Doomthumbs wrote:
You can't place the models anywhere outside of the hull area of the tank once the tank is removed (weapons and antennae dont count).

Again your interpretation there isn't a single thing in the rules to support this statment and we all know in 40k, except for a few circumstances where it's spelt out, part of a base is enough to satisfy requierments of on, under, within etc.

The rulebook asks if it is in the area--it never says entirely. It never states only within the area.

Partially in satisfies the rules.

At least the ones in the book we are discussing, as well as the rules of math, English, and almost anything I can think of other than random assertions by people online.

Doomthumbs wrote:
What does the Rulebook say?

About washcloths? Nothing...

But page 3 "MEASURING DISTANCES" might be of help.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
'The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be.'

Where's this quote from?

From here:

P.3 measuring distances "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be

Surviving passengers = Models =Area of the base = 0.785 inches square.

so the 0.785 inches square of the base need to be placed where the vehicle used to be.

kirsanth wrote:The rulebook asks if it is in the area--it never says entirely. It never states only within the area.

Partially in satisfies the rules.

At least the ones in the book we are discussing, as well as the rules of math, English, and almost anything I can think of other than random assertions by people online.

Partially does not satisfy the rule, since the area needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

DeathReaper wrote:Partially does not satisfy the rule, since the area needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

Gotcha. You assert that the ruler is not on the table. Full stop.

So until you place each model so that it covers the entire area the vehicle took up you fail.

As I have no vehicles I am fine with your "rules" despite things like "words" or "definitions" getting in your way.

If I light your arm on fire, are you on fire?
Or is it fine for me to do since you are not entirely on fire?

Oh man. . .where is that image of the car.

Time to read!

I still don't see your quote, I see "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" and that's it I don't see anything saying 'the area of each base must be contained within the boundaries of the hull' or anything like that.
Just 'where the vehicle used to be', so I'll put the where it used to be in whatever fashion satisfies the condition of placing the model 'where the vehicle used to be' as I defiantly can also manage to place a model where vehicle did not used to be as well, because that's not forbidden/qualified and I've satisfied the 'where the vehicle used to be' by putting my model where it used to be.

kirsanth wrote:The rulebook asks if it is in the area--it never says entirely. It never states only within the area.

Partially in satisfies the rules.

At least the ones in the book we are discussing, as well as the rules of math, English, and almost anything I can think of other than random assertions by people online.

It doesnt say that it gets to be outside that area either. It doesn't say area, so you're not quoting the rulebook.
Says what Quote?
We're discussing the 40k rulebook, right? I've got one and can't find that quote. Also no one can provide it, so its making rules up.

ChrisCP wrote:Again your interpretation there isn't a single thing in the rules to support this statment and we all know in 40k, except for a few circumstances where it's spelt out, part of a base is enough to satisfy requierments of on, under, within etc.

I don't know. Quote that from the rulebook so I can see it? Like I've said before, "we all know" is a general consensus between players, not a rule. So quote it or you're making stuff up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

So until you place each model so that it covers the entire area the vehicle took up you fail.

Models. Why again does it need to cover the entire area when the rules say nothing about that?
No quote again?
Referencing car pictures?
How can I believe that?

Doomthumbs wrote:Models. Why again does it need to cover the entire area when the rules say nothing about that?
No quote again?
Referencing car pictures?
How can I believe that?

Ironic?

Also: Mods have posted and their decision came down on my side of the fence.

Also, I found the car pic.
The last time you brought up this. . .interpretation up was here and that is where I found the car pic!

For those unwilling to read another 22pages of the same stuff. . .


I originally asked if someone's wife was on the car.

heh

Wait... you think getting a thread locked means you were right?

/boggle

editing to add:
Now I see what you mean about mods, but that makes even less sense.

It IS ironic, because you provided a quote, but its just a squabble.

Doomthumbs wrote: Why again does it need to cover the entire area when the rules say nothing about that?

You really are missing the irony in this?

Yes. Please explain. All I saw was my handprint on a Volvo.

You are stating that the rules need to tell you the entire area is needed while you are also stating that the rules do not need to tell you the entire area is needed.

That was what I was refering to, the handprints are for illustrating ignorance and humor.

Also: That smear has a beltline, so clothes most likely never made it off. Hot, dude. I havnt seen a miniskirt with beltoops before.

Doomthumbs wrote:I havnt seen a miniskirt with beltoops before.

They come with all sorts of. . .perks. Look into it if you are so inclined.

Rules just say it needs to be in the area the vehicle was occupying. Doesnt give permission for placement beyond that.
I didnt post in that other thread at all and so what if its locked, it doesnt relate.

I never said at all that it had to cover the entire area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh wait. No, I have seen those.
Good thing I don't drive a Volvo I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I drive a Vulva.

Doomthumbs wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The rulebook asks if it is in the area--it never says entirely. It never states only within the area.

Partially in satisfies the rules.

At least the ones in the book we are discussing, as well as the rules of math, English, and almost anything I can think of other than random assertions by people online.

It doesnt say that it gets to be outside that area either. It doesn't say area, so you're not quoting the rulebook.
Says what Quote?
We're discussing the 40k rulebook, right? I've got one and can't find that quote. Also no one can provide it, so its making rules up.

He's not quoting, note the lack of quotation marks ""..."". ^_^

Doomthumbs wrote:I don't know. Quote that from the rulebook so I can see it? Like I've said before, "we all know" is a general consensus between players, not a rule. So quote it or you're making stuff up.

So you don't know how to disembark, measure distances between models or fire telplate weapons =\ ? That is a worry.

ChrisCP wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote:
What does the Rulebook say?

About washcloths? Nothing...
But page 3 "MEASURING DISTANCES" might be of help.

ChrisCP wrote:I still don't see your quote, I see "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" and that's it I don't see anything saying 'the area of each base must be contained within the boundaries of the hull' or anything like that.
Just 'where the vehicle used to be', so I'll put the where it used to be in whatever fashion satisfies the condition of placing the model 'where the vehicle used to be' as I defiantly can also manage to place a model where vehicle did not used to be as well, because that's not forbidden/qualified and I've satisfied the 'where the vehicle used to be' by putting my model where it used to be.

It has to specifically allow you to do something, permissive ruleset.

Because it is not forbidden is not right.

outline where the vehicle used to be, place the area of the base in that area.

We're not measuring distances here. Ever.

Doomthumbs wrote:I drive a Vulva.

I am certain I understand your point, and I still think you are incorrect.
It matters not to me, as I play Tyranids and (with the assumption that you play an army that can do it) I respect the notion of restricting yourself in vague areas.

Cheers.

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:I still don't see your quote, I see "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" and that's it I don't see anything saying 'the area of each base must be contained within the boundaries of the hull' or anything like that.
Just 'where the vehicle used to be', so I'll put the where it used to be in whatever fashion satisfies the condition of placing the model 'where the vehicle used to be' as I defiantly can also manage to place a model where vehicle did not used to be as well, because that's not forbidden/qualified and I've satisfied the 'where the vehicle used to be' by putting my model where it used to be.

It has to specifically allow you to do something, permissive ruleset.
Because it is not forbidden is not right.

It is when one can satisfy the requirements provided by the rules, and people are telling one that one is not.
We are telling you that we are placing the model where the vehicle used to be, you're saying no your not for these reasons, and we're saying but I put the model where the vehicle used to be.

DeathReaper wrote:It has to specifically allow you to do something, permissive ruleset.

Because it is not forbidden is not right.

It is allowed when told to place them within the area. Lacking a restriction does not mean the restriction exists. In fact, the opposite is true.

Doomthumbs wrote:We're not measuring distances here. Ever.

Good then I'll put my model where the vehicle used to be without an issues involving measurment or any other sort of calculation.

And again. That ruler is also off the table. And stuff that is off the table is out of the game.

ChrisCP wrote:
It is when one can satisfy the requirements provided by the rules, and people are telling one that one is not.
We are telling you that we are placing the model where the vehicle used to be, you're saying no your not for these reasons, and we're saying but I put the model where the vehicle used to be.

But you can't satisfy the requirements provided by the rules, since the area of the base etc... If i can point to a part of the area of the base that is not where the vehicle used to be, you have broken a rule.

?Huh, I put my guy where the vehicle used to be see? *points*

Doomthumbs wrote:And again. That ruler is also off the table. And stuff that is off the table is out of the game.

?Huh?

ChrisCP wrote:?Huh, I put my guy where the vehicle used to be see? *points*

You placed the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base where the vehicle used to be?

Then you are good.

If the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be then you are not good.

DeathReaper wrote:You placed the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base where the vehicle used to be?

Then you are good.

If the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be then you are not good.

You do realize those can both be true and that is where the disagreement comes?
Since the rules never state the second part (the third line) your case is just weird.

DeathReaper wrote:
If the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be then you are not good.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this bit! :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As the first one, yeah I've place area of the base 'where the vehicle used to be'.

Everyone might recognize this handy image from earlier in the thread.

Side one contends that models A & B have been placed where the vehicle used to be, and that's okay.
Side two contends that model B has been placed where the vehicle used to be, but model A has been placed partially outside of that area, and that's bad.

Do we really need to have ten more pages of "Yes it is" "No it isn't" level discourse?

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:You placed the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base where the vehicle used to be?

Then you are good.

If the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be then you are not good.

You do realize those can both be true and that is where the disagreement comes?
Since the rules never state the second part (the third line) your case is just weird.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
If the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be then you are not good.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this bit! :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As the first one, yeah I've place area of the base 'where the vehicle used to be'.

The Rules state that the surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base = 0.785 square inches need to be where the vehicle used to be.

anything less than 0.785 square inches of the base and its not where the vehicle used to be.

DeathReaper wrote:anything less than 0.785 square inches of the base and its not where the vehicle used to be.

If the rules said "entirely" you would be correct.

Still.

They do not, however. Very much like (dis)embarking or moving onto the table.

solkan has the level head this time however.

Thanks!

The rules do not need to say entirely because area means all of said area.

But since this is not understood, its a moot point.

DeathReaper wrote:The rules do not need to say entirely because area means all of said area.
But since this is not understood, its a moot point.

I'm fairly sure that's not the definition of area... and that area is not mentioned, just 'placed where the vehicle used to be, and as solkan has shown this can be done by degrees.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The rules do not need to say entirely because area means all of said area.
But since this is not understood, its a moot point.

I'm fairly sure that's not the definition of area... and that area is not mentioned, just 'placed where the vehicle used to be, and as solkan has shown this can be done by degrees.

We must ask ourselves "What is the area of that models base?", since the area of the base needs to be where the vehicle used to be, on a 1" base the area comes to 0.785 square inches.

That 0.785 square inches is what needs to be where the vehicle used to be. if you have any less than 0.785 square inches where the vehicle used to be, then a rule is broken.

But since area is not understood, its a moot point.

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The rules do not need to say entirely because area means all of said area.
But since this is not understood, its a moot point.

I'm fairly sure that's not the definition of area... and that area is not mentioned, just 'placed where the vehicle used to be, and as solkan has shown this can be done by degrees.

We must ask ourselves "What is the area of that models base?", since the area of the base needs to be where the vehicle used to be, on a 1" base the area comes to 0.785 square inches.

Must we? 'We' certainly are not told to, just to place them where the vehicle used to be, I can prove that part of the model is where the vehicle used to be, ergo, I have satified the condition.

You're saying 'the entire model' must be 'contain within where the vehicle used to be' is fallicious, as I have already satisfied placing a model where the vehicle used to be.

ChrisCP wrote:
Must we? 'We' certainly are not told to, just to place them where the vehicle used to be, I can prove that part of the model is where the vehicle used to be, ergo, I have satified the condition.

You're saying 'the entire model' must be 'contain within where the vehicle used to be' is fallicious, as I have already satisfied placing a model where the vehicle used to be.

You have not satisfied placing a model where the vehicle used to be. I can prove that part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, ergo, you have not satisfied the condition.

We must because we are told to, when it says the surviving passengers, ergo we need to define the area.

Since surviving passengers = Model = Area of the base, and the area of a 1" base is 0.785 square inches.

Anything less than 0.785 square inches is not the area of the base, since we know the area of the base is 0.785 square inches.

Do all your fancy calculation and extraporlations, I don't see how they apply to the rules, I'm still going to be placing a model where the vehicle used to be.

solkan wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:
I can prove that part of the model is where the vehicle used to be, ergo, I have satified the condition.

DeathReaper wrote:
You have not satisfied placing a model where the vehicle used to be. I can prove that part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, ergo, you have not satisfied the condition.

Say what? Placing a model where the vehicle used to be isn't placing the model where the vehicle used to be?

ChrisCP wrote:Do all your fancy calculation and extraporlations, I don't see how they apply to the rules, I'm still going to be placing a model where the vehicle used to be.

I can prove that part of the model is where the vehicle used to be, ergo, I have satified the condition.

DeathReaper wrote:
You have not satisfied placing a model where the vehicle used to be. I can prove that part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, ergo, you have not satisfied the condition.

ChrisCP wrote:Say what? Placing a model where the vehicle used to be isn't placing the model where the vehicle used to be?

I laughed @ fancy calculation.

They apply to the rules cause the area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be.

In that pic, the area of base A is not where the vehicle used to be. base is defined as 0.785 square inches, that has, lets say, 0.145 square inches where the vehicle used to be. So the base (0.785 square inches) is not where the vehicle used to be.

The area of base B is where the vehicle used to be.

If area is not understood, it is a moot point.

Why are we talking about area? It's mentioned on page 3 "A model is considered to occupy the area of its base" - which is great, knowing a base is analogues to the area occupied. But page 63 makes no mention of this, just place the model where the vehicle used to be. Which we have done you keep adding ‘fancy’ bits on, clauses and conditions. We put model where vehicle used to be, done. Yo say ‘But it’s not all where the vehicle used to be, you have to put the whole area in.’ And I’ll repeat ‘I have put the model where the vehicle used to be – tht’s what the rules say to do”, and you’ll ’make stuff up’ to say I have not, in fact, placed the model where the vehicle used to be. When quite plainly, I have.

ChrisCP wrote:Why are we talking about area? It's mentioned on page 3 "A model is considered to occupy the area of its base" - which is great, knowing a base is analogues to the area occupied. But page 63 makes no mention of this, just place the model where the vehicle used to be. Which we have done you keep adding ‘fancy’ bits on, clauses and conditions. We put model where vehicle used to be, done. Yo say ‘But it’s not all where the vehicle used to be, you have to put the whole area in.’ And I’ll repeat ‘I have put the model where the vehicle used to be – tht’s what the rules say to do”, and you’ll ’make stuff up’ to say I have not, in fact, placed the model where the vehicle used to be. When quite plainly, I have.

Nothing made up if you understand what area means.

Because Model = Area of the base, they are the same for game purposes.

you said it "knowing a base is analogues to the area occupied"

We put the model where vehicle used to be.

or

We put the area of the base where vehicle used to be.

Since they are interchangeable.

area = 0.785 inches square etc...

ChrisCP wrote: yeah I've placed area of the base 'where the vehicle used to be'.

Heeheehee
...
=_=

DeathReaper wrote:The rules do not need to say entirely because area means all of said area.

And thats a lie. I am calling it a lie because, after asking you to find proof of this false statement, you havent been able to. You keep mindlessly repeating it in the hope that sheer repetition will make everyone suddenly believe you.

It's not happening. So, for the last time: stop making up rules.

DeathReaper wrote:But since this is not understood, its a moot point.

I lol'ed at this repeated fallacy. We all clearly understand "area", you are the one make a rule up to state that area "HAS" to mean "all of the area"

But keep going. I'm waiting to see what rules you'll make up next.

Funny enough, this actually came up in the game I played last night. I was playing blood angels, my first time with the codex, hoping to gain perspective on the beatdown thats coming to me from a regular blood angels player later this week.

The kid I was playing was playing Eldar. No judgements, some people like that.

But he also blew up one of my rhinos, and I said that I was unsure of where to place the models. Where did he, who does not post on or care about this site, think that the models should be placed? Understand he was like 12, and playing Eldar, but I think his fluff perspective was pretty insightful, as far as how we played it.

"Where they were IN the vehicle. I'd let you put them on the outside if you had brought orks. Your guys were all inside the tank hiding like punks."

Makes sense to me, and its how we worked it out by discussion during our game. Houseruled at the gamestore to be played my way, so I'm comfortable just leaving this topic as Solkan and the scarecrow from Oz put it. Some go this way, but then again, some go that way as well. Its played my way at the store I play at, so that works for me.

From a rules only, no fluff perspective though... Still no quote from the rulebook to justify any kind of partial placement. So its still just a player convention you guys are using. Just like the words of a 12 year old eldar player. It depends on how the two players decide it is played for their game. This is true because there is no quote that anyone can provide. I've certainly asked for it enough times. But it just isn't in the rulebook. You have to use the pinky toe justification system. Hardly compelling in my opinion.
But since no one can provide that quote (the one about what percentage if any has to be inside area terrain of anything even close to that), calling the other side liars and cheaters is senseless. Again, it makes you look like a player most would be uncomfortable playing, knowing that 2 hours is a long time to spend with a hemorrhoid that walks like a man. Both sides here are 'making stuff up', whether its about pinky toes or wives being laid out on vulvas. Volvos.
I still think my side of the argument has more validity to it, because we're able to provide rulebook quotes as to what constitutes the area of a model and vehicle. And the other side provides no quotes that aren't monkeyjumped snippets of contextless text, or pictures of rulers that if they were a vehicle, would satisfy both the requirements for being on the table and removed from the table. I'd still like to see a more final decision on this from someone who I've got even a modicum of respect for (other than Kirsanth, who I still believe is wrong, even though I also understand his point. Cheers as well. Next time I visit my vagatarian sister in the frisco area, I'd love to meet you for a game/beer at any of the I'm sure respectable/well lit areas that games go down in that part of the world. The beer I'm not sure I care where it comes from, or if its respectable. The place. The beer should be respectable, not some fizzy yellow water).
[Edit: Reds8n too. Maybe not for beers since I'm American and his sig.. well... but respect? Certainly. And KilKrazy too, he got it right first.
Respect also goes out to Brother Ramses for the felt pad idea. The Eldar kid wondered why I had a custom made pad ready made, but hey. I'm 25 and you're 12. You just got mindflanked.]

Anyway, thats my nonabusive two cents. My last two, unless theres something new that can be added, or that quote finally surfaces. I'm confident on both counts that it won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And thats a lie. I am calling it a lie because, after asking you to find proof of this false statement, you havent been able to. You keep mindlessly repeating it in the hope that sheer repetition will make everyone suddenly believe you.

But keep going. I'm waiting to see what rules you'll make up next.

Wait, I forgot to get a kick in. Was too focused on being polite.
Kirsanth, THAT is irony. That quote right above.

I can't believe this bs has gone on for six pages. If something is not expressly forbidden within the rules and you do it you are not cheating. That being said it doesn't necessarily endear you to your opponent. I believe somewhere pretty early in the brb it says the game is meant to be fun for both participants this being so be sportman like even in a tournament or risk being called TFG. The game is for fun if people play it with that in mind it generally is. Simples

DT - you still havent retracted your false statemetns I see.

I will point out that we HAVE provided rule quotes: the quote that shows there are *no* additional restrictions in place. If there are NO additional restrictions placed on "within" then any placement that satisfies "within" MUST BE LEGAL. Thats simply how language works.

To pretend otherwise is to add non-existant requirements, or to not understand simple English statements.

Ed_Bodger wrote:I can't believe this bs has gone on for six pages. If something is not expressly forbidden within the rules and you do it you are not cheating. That being said it doesn't necessarily endear you to your opponent. I believe somewhere pretty early in the brb it says the game is meant to be fun for both participants this being so be sportman like even in a tournament or risk being called TFG. The game is for fun if people play it with that in mind it generally is. Simples

On page 51 My monsterous creatures are not expressly forbidden from shooting during your Shooting Phase. Theres a whole family of closed threads about why it does need to be expressly forbidden. But no rules quote.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I will point out that we HAVE provided rule quotes: the quote that shows there are *no* additional restrictions in place. If there are NO additional restrictions placed on "within" then any placement that satisfies "within" MUST BE LEGAL.

Quote it again where the partial thing is covered by anything other than your linguistic analysis. I missed it.
I'm not submitting to your 'retract your poopy statements or I'm not talking to you!' petulant demands, I don't make false statements that you can quote.

Doomthumbs wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I will point out that we HAVE provided rule quotes: the quote that shows there are *no* additional restrictions in place. If there are NO additional restrictions placed on "within" then any placement that satisfies "within" MUST BE LEGAL.

Quote it again where the partial thing is covered by anything other than your linguistic analysis. I missed it.

"within" is not qualified. SHow how it is, and you may have a point.

Oh wait, you dont have one. You are asking for a negative proof, whereas we only have to ask you for a positive one - show a quote where "within" is restricted. YOU are the one changing the meaning of the sentence with no evidence to allow you to do so, the onus is on YOU to prove the restriction exists otherwise *gasp* an unqualified statement means exactly that.

Sorry if that went too fast for you.

If you cannot do so, without your usual prevarication or ducking, then you concede the argument. You may not agree to the concession, but that will be the result of your failure to prove your restriction exists.

I dont expect you to actually provide an actual answer, btw, as you have yet to do so after quite a few pages of asking, and having many posters ask you the same thing. You are BRILLIANT at ducking a simple question.

Doomthumbs wrote:I'm not submitting to your 'retract your poopy statements or I'm not talking to you!' petulant demands, I don't make false statements that you can quote.

Wrong

Doomthumbs making unsubstantiated and false claims on page 4 of this thread wrote:
This is YOUR fabrication, and I checked the other thread and you made stuff up there, too.

So, willing to retract your unsubstantiated, false statements yet? Put up or shut up.

Imagine for a moment that you have to place the models where the vehicle 'currenly is'.

I think all would argue that the models would have to be placed so as no part of the models bases went outside of the edge of the vehicle as you could then argue that that part of the base was 'outside' of the vehicle.

So why if you have to place the models where the vehicle was does this become acceptable ?

Doomthumbs wrote:other than Kirsanth, who I still believe is wrong, even though I also understand his point. Cheers as well. Next time I visit my vagatarian sister in the frisco area, I'd love to meet you for a game/beer at any of the I'm sure respectable/well lit areas that games go down in that part of the world. The beer I'm not sure I care where it comes from, or if its respectable. The place. The beer should be respectable, not some fizzy yellow water

There is actually a nice pub with good food and good beer near my FLGS. I am more of a Scotch drinker, but let me know if you are ever around!

Because your middle paragraph is an assumption; you are adding non-existant restrictions to the requirements. In essence you are adding "entirely" to the statement.

The requirements ONLY care about you placing the model within the area defined by the dead vehicle. If you can satisfy that requirement you have satisfied the only requirement actually written down.

Placing the model entirely within, and partially within, BOTH satisfy the requirement.

Where DT and DR are failing is they are attempting to fabricate this requirement, when none is present - DR through the "novel" "area must be the whole area", and DT by simply repeating that we have to prove "partially" is allowable. Neither are valid arguments.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oh wait, you dont have one.

nosferatu1001 wrote: *gasp*

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry if that went too fast for you.

Is all I keep hearing from you. Dissappointingly short insults.
Give me a quote that says the model can be halfway in anything else.
If you cannot do so, without your usual prevarication or ducking, then you concede the argument. You may not agree to the concession, but that will be the result of your failure to prove your restriction exists.

Doomthumbs wrote:
This is YOUR fabrication, and I checked the other thread and you made stuff up there, too.

nosferatu1001's paraprased text on the other thread wrote: Models can be off the table if they start partially off the table from reserve, that way they aren't moving off the table! Look at the ruler, man!

Off the table is like Vegas. What goes there, stays there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, willing to retract your unsubstantiated, false statements yet? Put up or shut up.

imcdonnell wrote:Imagine for a moment that you have to place the models where the vehicle 'currenly is'.

I think all would argue that the models would have to be placed so as no part of the models bases went outside of the edge of the vehicle as you could then argue that that part of the base was 'outside' of the vehicle.

So why if you have to place the models where the vehicle was does this become acceptable ?

+1

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The rules do not need to say entirely because area means all of said area.

And thats a lie. I am calling it a lie because, after asking you to find proof of this false statement, you havent been able to. You keep mindlessly repeating it in the hope that sheer repetition will make everyone suddenly believe you.

It's not happening. So, for the last time: stop making up rules.

I apparently invented math so i am making up the formula for figuring out the area of the base, and what area means. /sarcasm

It is only a lie if you do not know what area means. I have on multiple posts tried to explain area, which should not need further explanation.

The formula for finding the area of the 1" base is Pi Times the Radius Squared. That will give you the surface area of the base.
Area = Surface area. and that is what has to be where the vehicle used to be, no less.

If you know what area means then you understand the rules for this situation.

Question 1. What is the area of a 1" base?

Question 2. where does this area have to be?

Question 3. can can this area be anywhere else?

Answer these 3 questions and all is clear.

Please stop saying that i am making up rules when i am clearly not making anything up. Find out what area includes and lets be done.

imcdonnell wrote:Imagine for a moment that you have to place the models where the vehicle 'currenly is'.

Thats brilliant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, its all I can do now to just blare "Imagine" at top volume, thinking imcdonnel is the best thing to come out of Brittain since the Beatles. That line made my whole morning.
Imagine your life on our side, nos. We've got friendship, beer [Edit, Scotch andbeer], and groovy tunes.

And the Wooooooooooorld shall be as one.