Not that i want to drag up some old flame thread, but some maroon i was playing last week tried to tell me that he could target units behind my carnifex between his legs, and used a thread here for reference that sounded bogus (as he couldn't even give me a thread title to look up), but i couldn't find it using search.

I finally had to point out his folley refering him to the appropriate page in the BBB that stated he couldn't he finally relented, but i was curious where the thread he was trying to misinterperet was. Anyone have a link to that thread or was he full of it?

There have been numerous LOS discussions around here... take your pick.

It all comes down to personal preference as to whether tracing a LOS through the space between a model's legs is the same as tracing a LOS through the actual model.

And then of course there's the 'magic cylinder' camp who insist, despite not having any backup in actual rules, that the model blocks LOS in a cylinder the diameter of the model's base up to the model's height.


You're not going to find anything concrete in the rules that says whether or not you can shoot through the model's legs. It's just something you're going to have to sort out with your opponent.

But Page 6 clarified it for me nicely tho, thereby completely negating his argument ..... not sure what the whole cylinder thing is all about hehe, i should read here more often i guess.

Page 6 has nothing to do with LOS.

LOS is explained on page 20.


All Page 6 does is define models, and explain how bases work for measuring.

Agreed, however, it states that :

"Firstly, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base", therefore there is nothing to draw los through, as a model blocks los to its height, and it occupies the area of its base.

No los thru the legs for him that day.

Agreed, however, it states that :

"Firstly, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base",

...so when measuring distances use the closest edge of the base as your reference point."

The area of the base applies to measuring. Nothing more. No reference is ever made to the area of the base having any effect on LOS, and there's a very good reason for that: Area is a 2-dimensional concept, not a 3-dimensional one.

The model occupies the area of its base. What does that mean? It means that the model is considered to have a 'footprint' the size of its base, and so we measure from the edges of that footprint.

The LOS rules NEVER refer to the space occupied by the model, or the area of the base. None of the rules anywhere ever tell us that the model occupies a specific volume of airspace above its base. They instead tell us to use an actual model's eye view to trace actual LOS to the model's body. Not the space around the model. Just the model's body.

I don't see any qualifier there, and they use model, which a model is clearly 3d, so a "model occupying the area of its base idicates that it does indeed require 3 dimensions to apply the wording.

in fact, model height tells us that when determining los, we use models; example :"Size 2: standard targets. basicly every MODEL not included in either of the other catergories."

And we know a model occupies the area of its base. Seems simple enough to me ....

Oh, dammit. 

RUSTY SPOONS AT THE READY!!

(And you magic cylinder people really don't want me to bust out with the magic cylinder dreadnaught again.  Rar!).

Posted By Thunderkiss on 02/27/2006 10:01 PM

Agreed, however, it states that :

"Firstly, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base", therefore there is nothing to draw los through, as a model blocks los to its height, and it occupies the area of its base.

No los thru the legs for him that day.

I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now.  Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?

"I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now. Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?"


Objection your honor, improper reference and poor grasp of the english language.

Sustained. The defendent will please try to exibit a better grasp of the english language and the usages of words therein, especially in the areas of reading comprehension.

/Humor off

So no, you aren't. you are occupying AN area IN your house, not THE area OF your house. Clearly different.

"I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now. Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?" -Ghaz

You would have to be really big to do that, or live in a really small house. However it is possible, reguardless of how probable.

Posted By Iorek on 02/27/2006 10:22 PM
Oh, dammit. 

Aaagh! Someone polished my spoons... my poor, poor eyes... however shall I gouge them now?

Gotta love people who selectively read the rules. The rules are quite explicit in stating that an model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so that WHEN MEASURING DISTANCES YOU MEASURE FROM THE BASE. No other relationships are stated or implied.

How people use that to create the magic cylinder is beyond me. I blame it on inability to read the english language.

Now I need to go dig up my rusty spoons.

Thunderkiss wrote:
I don't see any qualifier there, and they use model, which a model is clearly 3d, so a "model occupying the area of its base idicates that it does indeed require 3 dimensions to apply the wording.

That is an improper assumption. If the rule had said that the model occupies the area of its base "up to the height of the model" (or some other determination of height), then you'd have an arguement.

As it stands now, this is what you get (you've made me bust out the old totally awesome picture):




A model only occupies the area of its base (the red and green areas). It does not occupy the area above its base (the blue area).

Don't make me kill this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Play it how you will, but neither side will be able to convince the other that they are right. Both sides claim the rules don't back up the other. However, both sides have been explained here.

There are two camps:

Magic Cylinder (Models take up the area of their base up to the physical model height)

or

Statue (LOS can be drawn through a models legs since they do not move)

Both ways can be abused with modeling (that was for you yak), just talk to your opponent before the game and play it that way.

I mean it, I will KILL this thread.

 

Thanks for the nod, Honkey Bro. . .place nice with the kids now.

This topic always makes me wish I had this guy's job:

 

 

 

Hmmm, you made a good point yak, and now i understand the cylinder thing, altho if i read your picture correcly, that was the cylinder model i was using; not to the model height from the base up, just the model itself and the space between extremities. And now that i mention it, i'm not so very sure how i came to think of it thusly .... mostly because it made the most sense and i wouldn't have idiots trying to target things in the motes between my tyrants wings just because they could see daylight .....

Thunderkiss:

What you have to understand is that this is an area in gameplay that's going to have to be discussed and agreed upon with your opponent beforehand. Personally, I don't prefer to play a game where we're constantly checking to see if models can be seen between legs or underneath tanks, etc.

That is a personal preference. However, the rules state that you cannot shoot THROUGH a model. Shooting between a models legs is not the same thing as shooting through something. If I shot a gun at you, I think we could quickly agree that shooting between your legs and shooting through you are two very different concepts.

The LOS rules state that you take a look from a model's eye view (and provided the LOS is not going over/through a close combat or a piece of area terrain), what you see is what you get.

If I can see models through some legs, or a gap between some wheels, etc, then I should be able to shoot it. That is what the rules state.


Just remember that playing the game to the strictest inerpretation of the rules does not always (usually) provide a fun game. It can make the game stupid, confusing and non-sensical at times.

Like all aspects of the game you have to be willing to compromise with your opponents. If you run into someone who wants to shoot between the legs of your Hive Tyrant, just be aware that he's not doing anything that isn't allowed in the rules. . .although he may not be the kind of player you want to play again.

So finish the game, shake his hand, and don't play him again.

Posted By Elnicko5 on 02/27/2006 10:43 PM
"I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now. Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?" -Ghaz

You would have to be really big to do that, or live in a really small house. However it is possible, reguardless of how probable.

No, it doesn't automatically mean that I am, is it?

Posted by Thunderkiss on 02/27/2006 11:40 PM
So no, you aren't. you are occupying AN area IN your house, not THE area OF your house. Clearly different

Yes, I am occupying the area of my house. I'm however only occupying a part of the area of my house, as opposed to me occupying the entire area of my house.

Now tell me where it says that a model "is considered to occupy the ENTIRE area of its base"? It does not. So a model does occupy the area of its base. The area that it is actually in.

Ghaz, I have no idea if you are occuping the whole area of your house, but I doubt you are.

Posted By Elnicko5 on 02/27/2006 11:42 PM
Ghaz, I have no idea if you are occuping the whole area of your house, but I doubt you are.

Although I do have what you might call a "gamer's figure", you would be correct that I'm not occupying the entire area of my house.  Regardless, I am still occupying the area of my house, if only in part.

I have to take exception to that, in order to occupy THE area of your house you would indeed have to be as big as the house, as opposed to occupying area IN your house, where you take up only a small part of it.
The words imply THE, not SOME OF, the object known as the base. The 2 are not the same no matter the semantics.

In fact they don't imply at all, they flat out state what and where, what occupies the base and by how much.

 

The Model (our what), and THE base.

besides, you are an illegal example anyway, GW didn't make any rules for you so we could compare you with a model on a base. Reality did that, and in most peoples reality, THE = the whole thing not part, where you are only occupying a part of the space in your house.

This whole "house" analogy you guys are using is flawed.

Models are not inside their base. They are on top of them.

A better analogy would be to say if you were standing on the roof of your house, and I say that you count as occupying the area of your house. Then, indeed, it could be said that you occupy every inch inside your house (at least we treat you as doing so). However, it cannot be said that any area above the house is actually occupied by you.

And that is exactly what some people are arguing here.

Again, it is entirely possible to occupy an area without physically filling that area. So far there has been no proof given to support the position that you must be physically filling the entire area that you occupy.

Apples and oranges. You are focusing soley on the aspect of occupancy that suits your needs and ignoring the rest. And if we are going to aregue the semantics of the english language which i thought was a forgone conclusion then there really isn't much to discuss; you may feel free to continue to maintain that red=blue because you want it to, but the discussion will halt very quickly.

Again, there is a very LARGE difference between THE area and SOME of the area.
We KNOW you don't, because GW didn't SAY that you do. They DID however say that the model occupies THE base.
My english tells me that that's the whole thing. The roof is certainly a better example, but even still, a moot point here because GW didn't make any rule for models doing such, just models on bases, so your logic still fails ghaz.

No, it's not apples and oranges. You've yet to prove that the model occupies the entirety of the base simultaneous at all times. Prove it instead of just saying 'no, that's not how it is' Because MY English tells me someone can occupy an area and not completely fill that area.

I can occupy my house. What am I occupying? My house. Am I in all parts of my house simultaneously? No.

A model occupies the area of it's base. What does the model occupy? The area of it's base. Is it in all parts of the base simultaneously. NO.

Saying a model occupies the 'area of it's base' is no different than saying 'my car occupies a parking spot' or that 'a tree occupies a yard' or anything else. It in no way, shape or form indicates that it completely and utterly fills that area.

Everyone, stop it!!!! I believe in the last time we discussed this (which was really like the fourth time) people with an open mind decided that it could be interpreted both ways and that the only way to resolve the issue would be for GW to come forward and clarify. I have my opinion and arguments but I will NOT be bringing them up here because the one thing we have proven is that those who believe in one way will not listen to the other and vise versa. So end it!!! My last post said it pretty clearly. Both ways are fair, as long as both parties know about it before the game. Thunderkiss, I recommend you just do that in your next game with this guy. Just decide to change it every other game to be fair, or maybe flip a coin, or winner of last game chooses, or roll off. There are a million ways to decide. I would put more effort into that rather than putting effort into trying to convice others to play it one way or the other. It is not worth me risking getting banned for killing this thread. If we hit page 3, its a goner

Like I said, just ask before the game starts which way people play: Statue or Magic Cylinder

Posted By Ghaz on 02/28/2006 9:07 AM
No, it's not apples and oranges. You've yet to prove that the model occupies the entirety of the base simultaneous at all times. Prove it instead of just saying 'no, that's not how it is' Because MY English tells me someone can occupy an area and not completely fill that area.

I can occupy my house. What am I occupying? My house. Am I in all parts of my house simultaneously? No.

A model occupies the area of it's base. What does the model occupy? The area of it's base. Is it in all parts of the base simultaneously. NO.

Saying a model occupies the 'area of it's base' is no different than saying 'my car occupies a parking spot' or that 'a tree occupies a yard' or anything else. It in no way, shape or form indicates that it completely and utterly fills that area.

The rules for what a model is goes on to explain that a model could be kneeling or standing anywhere on the base as the reason that it occupies the ara of the base. Therefore the model doesn't have to occupy all of the base at the same time to occupy the area of the base for game purposes. The line about measuring distance that yakface quotes is in the model definition section, as an example of how the area is used, ie for measuring distance. Note that the actual rules for measuring distance is in the LOS section on page 20 or so. yakface's crappy drawing is also a misrepresentation of the LOS rules since it does go on to explain that the model is not exactly where it is modeled, it could be anywhere on the base.

yakface's crappy drawing

I believe that is it's official name

Posted By Honkey Bro on 02/28/2006 12:32 PM

yakface's crappy drawing

I believe that is it's official name

It is his official name, I wanted to be clear

This post is only to try and force this thread into three pages so Honkey Bro will have to make good on his threat.

So it has some relivence, I can see the arguement on both sides. I personally perfer the magic cylinder theory only because it makes the game go faster and gives the game as a whole a more flowing feel. Not one of a bunch of actions taking place in a single frozen frame.

So it has some relivence, I can see the arguement on both sides. I personally perfer the magic cylinder theory only because it makes the game go faster and gives the game as a whole a more flowing feel. Not one of a bunch of actions taking place in a single frozen frame.

I'm with you, Jayden. While we know that "you can use modelling to your advantage," I'd just as soon not have to deal with it. A standing Carnifex, a leaping Carnifex, and a sleeping Carnifex, from the game's perspective, really ought to be the same.

And as for shooting between the Carnifex's legs, that's probably a pretty chancy thing. I mean, what if the Carnifex is, um, "interested" at the time you're taking your shot? The available space for firing is likely to be less than on a cold day on Valhalla - do we need minis that reflect the different, er, "size" of models in different climate conditions? Do we WANT to encourage such things?!?

I'm surprised this question didn't make it into the FAQ thread.

Oh, believe me. . .this question is included on the FAQ.

Any "issue" I've taken the time to make a "crappy diagram" (tm) for is certainly going to be included on any FAQ I compile.

"crappy drawing", not diagram.

yakface's crappy drawing is also a misrepresentation of the LOS rules since it does go on to explain that the model is not exactly where it is modeled, it could be anywhere on the base.

...and then tells you to draw a LOS using a model's eye view to the target's body. NOT the 'volume of space inhabited by the model'...

I don't want to, but I have to. I swore I would always throw my hat into the ring when magic cylinder came up so I must do it again.

If I draw a 1 meter diameter circle on the ground and stand in the center of it I occupy that space.
Imagine a cylinder that is the area of the circle up to my height (3' 2")

Even though I'm standing in the center of the circle the object only needs to reach the edge of the circle to hit me.

If you draw another circle that touches mine and stand in the center of it we will be involved in combat even if our arms cannot reach each other where we stand and those around us will not be able to see through the combined area of our circles up to a height of 6'.

You cannot stand next to me in the same circle. If my circle touches a wall you cannot move past me while I stand aside. The only way you can move past me is if the edge of my circle is over 1 meter away from the wall.

Even though, you and I are not standing at the edge of our circles all distances between us will be from circle edge to circle edge. So, we may be able to lean over and hold hands, but we will actually not be touching at all because the edges of our circles are not in contact with each other.

I think I've covered it all, but I'm sure if I haven't you can fill in the blanks yourself. These are all real world translations of what the rules tell us. Take from it what you will but, please stop the "I occupy the room I'm in" arguments. If I fire into the room will I hit you? Maybe. If I know you're occupying an area I will certainly put a few rounds in there regardless of where exactly you are standing in there. Any "real world" arguments should really be reserved for the magic cylinder players.

Unfortunatly I'm not really sure which side your on Glaive Co. It was a nice example but I'm not sure what its trying to prove.

Anyway, I think its stupid that the game is supposed to be extrapalated motion during the movement and assault phases, but is freeze frame in the shooting phase. I just find the idea stupid that all SM commanders choose at the exact moment the enemy is shooting at them to hold their fists/swords/pointy sticks high in the air and not move a muscle.

Anyway, not really helping much other than to get this to page three so Honkey Bro can go to town.

Anyway, I think its stupid that the game is supposed to be extrapalated motion during the movement and assault phases, but is freeze frame in the shooting phase.

It works that way because that's the only way that really works. You can't draw a reliable LOS to empty space above the model's base, and taking the physical LOS that you can actually see involves the players far more than some abstract 'you can or can not see it because it's a size 3 model'...

For anyone who can argue that you shouldn't be able to see between the Carnifex's legs because they are supposedly in motion, their opponent can just as easily argue that they should be able to see through, for exactly the same reason...

Treating the shooting phase as a 'snapshot' and using a true LOS removes any argument over what can and can't be seen. If you can see it, you can shoot it. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

I, too, anxiously await the coming of Honkey Bro.

For anyone who can argue that you shouldn't be able to see between the Carnifex's legs because they are supposedly in motion, their opponent can just as easily argue that they should be able to see through, for exactly the same reason...

My major objection is that it is an asinine approach to the problem. It'd be stupidly simple to legitimize the base of the model (now a semi-official size) as defining the area you can't shoot through. Instead, we're left with "You can use modeling to your advantage, you can use modeling to your advantage, you can use modeling to your advantage," where your Carnifex needs to wear a skirt, to prevent sniping UNDER it at the tyranid warrior behind him. Or, just make sure you turn him modestly sidewise after movement - no need to face the enemy with a non-vehicle, after all.

Treating the shooting phase as a 'snapshot' and using a true LOS removes any argument over what can and can't be seen. If you can see it, you can shoot it. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Not really. If you feel that the game needs this sort of exact LOS drawing then your already pulling out the laser pointers. How hard would it be to take a peek down from the top to see if the beem crosses over the edge of a base. Its just as easy.

Not saying which is right, just that easy of operation is rarely a consideration in the GW rule set.

Anyway... I can feel the shadow of Honkey Bro passing over head. The time has come, this thread is to be devoured by the unstoppable might of Honkey Bro. He comes to feed, there will be no stopping him.

Posted By Janthkin on 02/28/2006 5:20 PM
It'd be stupidly simple to legitimize the base of the model (now a semi-official size) as defining the area you can't shoot through.

It would?

So you're saying that a dreadnought behind a wall like this:



...should block LOS through the holes in the wall? And that an opponent should be able to shoot at the dreadnought so positioned? And that makes more sense than just being able to shoot what you can see...? And then of course there's the absurdity that a Carnifex or Dreadnought could suddenly block a larger area of LOS purely by being placed on a larger base...

If you can find a wall with holes just like that then in the 1 in 1000 games that this would come up with then yes the dreadnaught can be shot (if using the magic cylinder theory) because its one of those situations that pops up in 1 in every 1000 games.

As for larger bases, well GW, if they had half a brain would give standard foot prints for all models that do not have standard basing sizes. That too would solve a lof the the modeling for advantage issues.

If you can find a wall with holes just like that then in the 1 in 1000 games that this would come up with then yes the dreadnaught can be shot (if using the magic cylinder theory) because its one of those situations that pops up in 1 in every 1000 games.

It doesn't have to be just like that... I merely illustrated an extreme example. A single hole would have the same effect, and would pop up far more often than 1 in a thousand.


But I guess we just have different ideas of what consitutes 'simple'... in a choice between shooting what I can see, or shooting at an empty patch of air because it happens to be located some particular distance above a base, I know which one I'm going to pick.

I like your picture, Insaniak. But the likelihood of that coming to pass is, as Jayden notes, rather small. MUCH smaller than that of having a unit standing behind that Dreadmought and visible only through his legs.

And GW went part of the way to solving your last point, by establishing minimum legal size bases. Going the one further step to maximum legal base sizes wouldn't be all that hard - Fantasy has been that way for a while now.

But I guess we just have different ideas of what consitutes 'simple'... in a choice between shooting what I can see, or shooting at an empty patch of air because it happens to be located some particular distance above a base, I know which one I'm going to pick.

False choice you're presenting there. I can play with words, too - I don't find it satisfying/compelling that an infantryman would calmly line a shot up BETWEEN the treads and UNDERNEATH the hull of an approaching battle tank, because he can see the boot of an advancing enemy.

An ideal world would allow for both - only shoot at vehicles whose hull you can see, no shooting past their base. (Missing third element to prevent horrible abuse: base size = size of the model.) But we're off-topic, and Honkey Bro is nigh.

I don't find it satisfying/compelling that an infantryman would calmly line a shot up BETWEEN the treads and UNDERNEATH the hull of an approaching battle tank, because he can see the boot of an advancing enemy.

Luckilly, that isn't allowed by the current LOS rules anyway, so that's all right then...

Honkey Bro, where are you?
Page three and the fight still rages!

oohhh ... crappy diagrams!~!!!!

more crappy diagrams , more crappy diagrams PLZ!!!!!!!!

I just wanted to pipe in during this short time i had to post and state i really didn't understand the "magic cylinder" bit but now i do, and i unwittingly subscribed to this philosophy as i hadn't fully considered the ramifications of "occupies the area of its base". That this topic has caused such a stir was not my intent; i really thought it was a foregone conclusion, but that was my assumtion, not a fact.

And Ghaz, i am not refuting soley with no, but this argument cannot proceed if we can't even agree on plain english. occupies = occupies, there is NO other interperetation to consider, no matter what your sensibilities may say. That is what RAW is all about after all.
You may not like the results, but it says what it says.

Posted By raughey on 03/01/2006 8:29 AM
more crappy diagrams , more crappy diagrams PLZ!!!!!!!!

Well, since you requested it, and since Iorek is resisting the temptation to post it, here ya go....

Again, the word 'occupy' and 'completely fill' are not synonyms. One does not mean the same as the other. We've given you countless examples of how something can 'occupy' an area and yet does not 'completely fill' that area.

Honkey Bro and I were unfortunately busy all day yesterday. Stupid work! But, for those of you wondering we are magic cylinder players. We believe that you CANNOT cheat through modelling. In other words, you can give your monsterous creature a 12" diameter base and enjoy all of the benefits that provides (large CC area, increased range when firing, etc.). But, it also comes with some disadvantages as well. The creature will probably never move without taking difficult terrain tests, he will probably never be able to hide from fire, and ordnance shots fired at him will be guaranteed hits everytime. But the main rule of thumb we use is that if it can't be shot at, it doesn't block LOS. The banner on a dreadnought's back, the battlecannon on a russ, and the flailing arms of a demon are examples of this.

The entire thing came up eons ago when Centurian99 and I had a conversation (on these forums long before the last meltdown) about how I use my sentinels as cover for my tanks. He questioned the tactic since the opponents could simply fire between the legs of the walker and the cab of the vehicle doesn't cover enough area of the tank to provide an 'obsured' situation. I had always taken it for granted that opponent's couldn't fire between the legs, and Centurian99 had always had the exact opposite thoughts on the subject. I'm pretty sure we both agreed that it can be played effectively either way! As long as the opponents know beforehand they can adjust their tactics accordingly. It's not that big of a deal.

Honkey Bro usually comes dragging in here late and hung over so I guess I'll have to try to fill the void until then... Okay, here we go. Something, wierd. Ummm... Oh! Okay! I got it! Do you guys sometimes ever wonder how they get the ketchup into the packs that you get from Burger King? I'm looking at one right know and it just looks like two pieces of foil stamped together with adhesive around the edges. I mean, how's a guy supposed to fill a container like that? And the real question that blows my mind is, "Does the ketchup occupy the packet even though it does not completely fill the available volume of the packet?" An even better question is, "Will Honkey Bro notice that I've put three of them on his chair before he sits down?"

He's still not here yet. Wait! that might be... no, nevermind. I had to eat the ketchup packets that I put on his chair. Hehe, remember on page 1 when Yak posted that picture of the guy with the target above his head. Oh man! That was funny! That's a great picture. I'm always impressed when I get to see how other countries militaries work. You see, the great thing about this is that it is equally dangerous either way you do it. The round will either hit the guy (we'll call him Crandel from now on) or it will successfully hit the paper target, travel through it, travel through the balsa wood fence behind it, and travel safely through the downtown business area that they are obviosly in. I can't tell but I think this picture was taken in Canada. Man, I bet Crandel never thought he'd be doing that when he signed up for the Canadian army! I think that whoever has to hold the targets during the day gets first pick of back bacon the morning after. So Crandel probably doesn't mind being hit with 3 rifle rounds a week on average to get to enjoy some mouth watering pig!

I'm hungry.

Sounds more like the French army than the Canadian one. Unless it's the French Canadian Army?

It was a dark and stormy night. Lightning flashed petulantly in the midnight sky, like a rebellious youth, illuminating the dazed expression on HonkeyBro's countenance as he stumbled wearily into the living room. "I simply must retire my aching posterior to this fine hardwood chair with plush backing", he uttered with accidental eloquence. No trace of irony could be detected in his wavering voice. If only he knew the fate that awaited him. Awaited him in darkness and in silence. His tragic end had been dispassionately calculated in aeons past by forces beyond his muddled comprehension, and titanic engines set in motion before the foundations of the earth could finally grind to a halt, the dedicated task of this mortal's destruction now complete. As HonkeyBro set himself at ease in the chair, he rubbed his head with one tired hand and fumbled for the light on his davenport with the other. He froze. His consciousness was stirred and for a moment arose from amidst the sea of limbic impulses to take note of the unusual sensations beneath him. "What the devil...!" He leapt up and looked down upon the seat of his beloved chair, which was of course a useless gesture since he was unable to make out anything beyond an arm's length. Then, in the turmoil outside, the air waws set on fire as ten trillion electrons exchanged places. In the split second before the deafening thunderclap HonkeyBro's desperate eyes were granted the sight of three ketchup packets, their seams split and contents emptied. The afterimage seared his retinas, and then all was darkness...

It was a dark and stormy night. Lightning flashed petulantly in the midnight sky, like a rebellious youth, illuminating the dazed expression on HonkeyBro's countenance as he stumbled wearily into the living room. "I simply must retire my aching posterior to this fine hardwood chair with plush backing", he uttered with accidental eloquence. No trace of irony could be detected in his wavering voice. If only he knew the fate that awaited him. Awaited him in darkness and in silence. His tragic end had been dispassionately calculated in aeons past by forces beyond his muddled comprehension, and titanic engines set in motion before the foundations of the earth could finally grind to a halt, the dedicated task of this mortal's destruction now complete. As HonkeyBro set himself at ease in the chair, he rubbed his head with one tired hand and fumbled for the light on his davenport with the other. He froze. His consciousness was stirred and for a moment arose from amidst the sea of limbic impulses to take note of the unusual sensations beneath him. "What the devil...!" He leapt up and looked down upon the seat of his beloved chair, which was of course a useless gesture since he was unable to make out anything beyond an arm's length. Then, in the turmoil outside, ten trillion electrons exchanged places, the air was set on fire. In the split second before the deafening thunderclap HonkeyBro's desperate eyes were granted the sight of three ketchup packets, their seams split and contents emptied. The afterimage seared his retinas, and then all was darkness...

OH MY GOD!!!

You people sicken me.

Destroying an obviously good thread.

Thinking I won't make good with my threat. . .

putting packets of red stuff on my chair!

I hope you appreciated my rendition of Glaive's practical joke...

This one says "catsup" on it. What the heck is catsup!? My grandmother calls a couch a davenport too. I don't know how to spell davenport but apperently it means couch.

Massachusetts Crazy Law
Children may smoke, but they may not purchase cigarettes.


Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts.


Affiliation with the Communist party is illegal.


No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.


Bullets may not be used as currency.


Alcoholic drink specials are illegal.


Massachusetts liquor stores can only open on Sundays if they are in Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Middlesex or Worcester counties and are within 10 miles of the Vermont or New Hampshire borders.


It's illegal to drive Texan, Mexican, Cherokee, or Indian cattle on a public road. (MGL Chapter 129 Section 35)


Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder.


Hunting on Sundays is prohibited.


It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.


At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches.


Public boxing matches are outlawed.


It is unlawful to injure a football goal post, doing so is punishable by a $200 fine.


It's illegal to keep a mule on the second floor of a building not in a city unless there are 2 exits. (MGL Chapter 272 section 86)


It's illegal to sell fewer than 24 ducklings at a time before May 1, or to sell rabbits, chicks, or ducklings that have been painted a different color. (MGL Chapter 272 Section 80D)


It's illegal to allow someone to use stilts while working on the construction of a building. (MGL Chapter 149 Section 129B)


Defacing a milk carton is punishable by a $10 fine.


It is illegal to frighten a pigeon.


An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.


All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday. (Repealed)


Tattooing and body piercing is illegal. (Repealed October 2000)


Quakers and witches are banned.


Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked.


It is illegal to reproach Jesus Christ or the holy ghost. (MGL Chapter 272 section 36)


Boston
No one may take a bath without a prescription.


It is illegal for any citizen to own more than three dogs.


An old law prohibits the taking of baths on Sunday.


Duels to the death permitted on the common on Sundays provided that the Governor is present.


Women may not wear heels over 3 inches in length while on the common.


Anyone may let their sheep and cows graze in the public gardens/commons at any time except Sundays.


No more than two baths may be taken within the confines of the city.


No one may cross the Boston Common without carrying a shotgun in case of bears.


It is illegal to play the fiddle.


Two people may not kiss in front of a church.


It is illegal to eat peanuts in church.


Burlington
You may not walk around with a "drink".


Cambridge
It is illegal to shake carpets in the street, or to throw orange peels on the sidewalk (section 12.16.100).


It costs $50 extra for a permit for hurling, soccer or Gaelic football games in a public park on a Sunday. (section 12.20.030)


Hingham
You may not have colored lights on your house if it can be seen from Main Street. Only white lights may be visible.


If you live on Main Street and want to paint your house, the colors must be approved by the historical society.


Hopkinton
Though horses and cows are allowed on the common, dogs are prohibited.


Longmeadow
It is illegal for two men to carry a bathtub across the town green.


Marlboro
One may not detonate a nuclear device in the city.


Silly string is illegal in the city limits.


It is illegal for any citizen to own more than two dogs.


It is illegal to buy, sell or possess a squirt gun.


Milford
Peeping in the windows of automobiles is forbidden.


Newton
All families must be given a hog from the town's mayor.


North Andover
An ordinance prohibits the use of space guns.


Woburn
In bars, it is actually illegal to "walk around" with a beer in your hand. (Repealed)

Ok let me firstly say that I don't have my rule book with me. I'm just going to bring up points.

Vehicles and MC are the same size.
From my understanding you can't draw line of site over the models base or over it if you are not on something taller then what you are shotting over.
Bases can be bigger but not smaller then the original.

I'm just wondering how someone could say, "I'm firing through your MC's base to hit another model."

site or sight?

shotting or shooting?

When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future, don't stick your elbow out the window, or it'll turn into a fossil.

Why do people in ship mutinies always ask for "better treatment"? I'd ask for a pinball machine, because with all that rocking back and forth you'd probably be able to get a lot of free games.

If you ever go temporarily insane, don't shoot somebody, like a lot of people do. Instead, try to get some weeding done, because you'd really be surprised.

It's sad that a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs.

Probably to a shark about the funniest thing there is is a wounded seal, trying to swim to shore, because where does he think he's going?!

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.

I remember that one fateful day when Coach too me aside. I knew what was coming. "You don't have to tell me," I said. "I'm off the team, aren't I?" "Well," said Coach, "you never were really ON the team. You made that uniform you're wearing out of rags and towels, and your helmet is a toy space helmet. You show up at practice and then either steal the ball and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to tackle people at inappropriate times." It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on.

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.

You repeated me!

No, you repeated a dumb one-liner joke site!

As I bit into the nectarine, it had a crisp juiciness about it that was very pleasurable - until I realized it wasn't a nectarine at all, but a human head!

So.

I'm just wondering how someone could say, "I'm firing through your MC's base to hit another model."

It's like when you say "I'm travelling through your doorway to to say hi to you." It's just not possible. The rules say you can't go through doorways. You may shout from outside, but I probably won't hear you because my shows are on.

So I didn't repeat you; I'm just on dial-up. It takes a LONG TIME to draw LOS with an analog modem you know!

And let's not even talk about multiple targets! Whew!

What?

Yeah, you tell him dreddnott! Honkey Bro is always all unorigional like that! He's like "Hey check out this joke man." And then, when he has told me the joke I'm all "dude, we just saw that on the simpsons. I mean, it like just happend 2 seconds ago." Wether you're on dial-up or not though, you still can't see through your own legs... or any walkers for that matter.

Oh man! You guys remember that picture of the paper tapped together to make a cylinder? It says "dreadnought" and then under that it says "rar!" on it. LOL! Man, that was funny! I remember when I first saw that I was laughing pretty hard. Some other people were laughing too because they typed in things like "LOL" and "That was funny." We're always laughing around here. Good times man, good times.

I INVENTED THE SIMPSONS. For the thousanth time!

What about things like ROFL, or PWNAGE, or PWNED.

Is anyone going to tell dreddnott that they spelled their name wrong?

You know it sounds like most of the people here don't fire through the legs of MC's or walkers anyways. I guess we can call them Magic sillhouette players or something. We should be able to make a derogatory term for everyone here. I would be fine with that I suppose. We could just use the sillhouette of the models for blocking LOS. I think the rules contradict themselves on the whole subject anyways. If I had a nickel everytime the rules contradicted themselves I'd be a millionaire! Or more acurately, I wouild have $1.15.

wouild or would.

Besides, your post is too on topic to be here on page 5.

I've been spelling dreadnought/dreadnaught as 'dreddnott' since 1997. I'm used to it. I'm also the only 'dreddnott' on Google.

AND I DIDANT NEED A MAGICK CYLANDAR MISTAR SMARTEY PANTS!!!11

Well... you had better nott mention it again!

That's wierd! Because I'm 'Mistar Smartey Pants!!!11' on Google! Small world.

Small world, heck! Talk about a collision with no basis in models! I mean, you can wave your arms all you want but that doesn't change the lines by a darn sight!

Thank you Honkey Bro for this illustration of LOS. Now obviously, LOS to the cats lurking under the cars in the background is blocked by the cat in the foreground. Of course, the SWAT members are involved in CC anyways.

Stop bring real world arguments into our virtual discussion on the intarwebnet machine programmery!

You try firing through that cats legs!!!

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/01/2006 11:32 AM
 I guess we can call them Magic sillhouette players or something. We should be able to make a derogatory term for everyone here. I would be fine with that I suppose. We could just use the sillhouette of the models for blocking LOS.


How about "magic rigor mortis" players?

"rigor mortis" is probably a better description of this thread! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I had no idea that would start page 6! Go me.