So Battlewagon models are big enough to fit around 8 Meganob bases within its footprint if it explodes. If I were to scratch build a Battlewagon to have a bigger footprint than the standard size, would this be cheating?
I don't want to have my squad all set up and my opponent gets 2 extra kills because I can't place them.
SGTPozy wrote: Yes, it is cheating however if it looks cool, your opponent should be okay with it (in casual games). Just don't tell him why its bigger.
So you're advising cheating AND lying to your opponent?
You don't need to emergency disembark after an explosion, you place a crater and stick the models where it was (unless this is changed in 7th). The size of the vehicle has no impact unless you are so surrounded that you can't place models outwith 1" of an enemy (in which case they are destroyed).
Open topped vehicles never result in an emergency disembark (as I read it) since any part of the hull is an exit point.
The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.
If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.
Increasing the size of the wagon by length increases it's footprint and it's vulnerability to side armor attacks and would be in keeping (you're gaining an advantage but trading a disadvantage). Making the wagon stupidly wide instead would increase it's footprint and increase it's protection from the front armor value and would not be in keeping.
GoonBandito wrote: The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.
If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.
Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.
And the vehicle used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...
GoonBandito wrote: The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.
If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.
Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.
And it used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...
That's quite a reach. It says:
"Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."
At the very least, this lets you place passengers touching the edge of the footprint as well because so long as at least part of their base is overlapping the location where the vehicle was, the model (passenger) can be said to be "where the vehicle used to be". That should get let you place almost any squad size.
I used a Land raider model to make my Battlewagon because it looks much better.
Its fine, and a non issue anyway as you don't have to physically be withing the footprint.
Even if you were, a surrounded battlewagon, the passengers automatically die as there is no space that is over 1" away from the sides to the disembarked models to be placed.
In order to avoid any discussion about modelling for an advantage, all models should be considered last edition, last base and static pose for all rules purposes.
So if your battlewagon is different, you still play it like it was the real one, especially when it's a disadvantage.
morgoth wrote: In order to avoid any discussion about modelling for an advantage, all models should be considered last edition, last base and static pose for all rules purposes.
Is there a page number in therulebook you can provide to back this up? Personally if I were to wrongly try to enforce this I would at least use the current edition not the last edition.
I made a big ork fort with 3 segments on wheels each counting as a single battle wagon. The where a lot bigger than normal battle wagons but i did the following:
- Each segment/"battle wagon" got his own big base.
- then I put each segment on top of another flat base with a drawing of the exact battle wagon size. I can just lift the whole model and then you would see the actual placement of a normal battle wagon(and place it back on its original position).
- Then I brought a normal battlewagon so that I could put it on the template so that theirs no issue about the hight or anything.
I also let my opponent know that I would never claim any advantage with my conversion. For example: if an enemy unit wants to shoot it even when a normal size battle wagon would be completely out of line of sight, I let them. It's my conversion so no fooling around.
If its a friendly game then I would also not care about this but i brought this army to the dutch Grand Tournament and I want all my opponents to have a good feeling about playing against this army.
GoonBandito wrote: The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.
If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.
Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.
And it used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...
That's quite a reach. It says:
"Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."
At the very least, this lets you place passengers touching the edge of the footprint as well because so long as at least part of their base is overlapping the location where the vehicle was, the model (passenger) can be said to be "where the vehicle used to be". That should get let you place almost any squad size.
If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?
morgoth wrote: In order to avoid any discussion about modelling for an advantage, all models should be considered last edition, last base and static pose for all rules purposes.
Is there a page number in therulebook you can provide to back this up? Personally if I were to wrongly try to enforce this I would at least use the current edition not the last edition.
There is no page in the book, it's not a rule it's an expectation from the general community that you will not model for an advantage.
I gave you the best way to avoid such discussions in all conditions, if you don't like it don't use it.
GoonBandito wrote: The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.
If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.
Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.
And it used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...
That's quite a reach. It says:
"Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."
At the very least, this lets you place passengers touching the edge of the footprint as well because so long as at least part of their base is overlapping the location where the vehicle was, the model (passenger) can be said to be "where the vehicle used to be". That should get let you place almost any squad size.
If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?
By the same way range is measured to the closest part of the base, not the entire base, if any part of the base is in range then the model is in range. If 1mm of the models base is where the tank used to be then the model fufils the rules requirements for being where the vehicle used to be used to be.
You assert that majority of the base must be within footprint before the model is considered to "be where the vehicle used to be". I cant see any precedent for that.
Take a pin, place it in a location, answer "was the vehicle here before it exploded? Is the passenger here now?" Answer yes? Then that passenger is placed where the vehicle used to be.
DeathReaper wrote: Except you are not measuring range when the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."
Therefore the part about measuring range between units does not apply (Also the vehicle is no longer a unit since it is exploded).
You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as).
If you want absolute literal definition of "where the vehicle used to be" I can place my squad where I original deployed the vehicle right? It used to be there before I moved it on turn 1.
DeathReaper wrote: Except you are not measuring range when the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."
Therefore the part about measuring range between units does not apply (Also the vehicle is no longer a unit since it is exploded).
You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as).
If you want absolute literal definition of "where the vehicle used to be" I can place my squad where I original deployed the vehicle right? It used to be there before I moved it on turn 1.
I have mentioned the rule, it says "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..." (Vehicles Chapter, Effect of damage on passengers section).
This rule is talking about placing the passengers where the vehicle used to be when the vehicle exploded. It is like context is important.
Here is a diagram, Passengers #1 and #2 are placed where the vehicle used to be, but clearly #3 is not placed where the vehicle used to be because the red area is clearly not where the vehicle used to be, and as such #3 is in violation of the rule, because part of its base is not where the vehicle used to be.
It is a Yes or No question. If Yes then the passenger is following the rule. If No the passenger is not following the rule. #1 and #2 are Yes they are placed where the vehicle used to be. #3 is No he is not placed where the vehicle used to be, since the vehicle did not explode in the red area.
You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as). Incidentally you are now asserting that the ENTIRE base has to be within it, which is a change from your original post (which mentioned majority).
Here is a question, "If 2 models overlap, are they occupying the same space?"
This is where modeling for advantage gets really weird, in my opinion.
The OP has stated that he is modeling for advantage.
I don't think that he needs to, but that's a separate issue (addressed below **).
However, what if someone just made a bigger battlewagon? There have been loads of them posted here on Dakka. Since those bigger battlewagons could take advantage of this bigger base, why aren't they modeling for advantage? If the creator of a bigger battlewagon didn't think of this advantage, but someone points it out to him, is he obligated to shave down the base, or be modeling for advantage now?
What if the OP decides that doing this is MFA, and decides not to do it. Then, the modeling bug hits him and he makes a bigger battlewagon anyway, because the conversion just turns out that big. He's not modeling for advantage now, but he had thought of it before, so is it still MFA?
What if you buy a bigger battlewagon off eBay? How do you know what the intention of the original modeler was? Were they MFA, or just being creative? How does your opponent know what your intentions are?
I think that any rule that requires you to divine the past intentions of someone who might not even be playing is fundamentally stupid. Either the players should be able to come to some agreement on what's an acceptable model, or the rules should tell them. Given that we have a game which uses True Line of Sight (and not any rules abstractions), I think that the onus is going to be on the players, but it can't be based on your 'intent' during modeling. It needs to be based on an appraisal of the actual model during the game--not any 'intention' held during creation.
**This is just how I would play it, but I wouldn't understand the rules to require models be killed in every possible emergency disembarkation. That is to say, I would assume that any unit which could legally fit IN a transport should be understood to be able to be legally disembarked from it in an emergency. If X number of Meganobs can be transported in a Battlewagon, then X Meganobs should be able to disembark in an emergency without dying--unless outside restrictions like enemy models or terrain/buildings/vehicles prevent it.
The deaths might result from other models or other terrain preventing the nobs from disembarking, but not the restrictive perimeter of the transport base itself.
If, for example, the Battlewagon was hit on an open plain, away from any enemies, forcing the Meganobs to disembark into the ruins of the model, why would they be removed? What was obstructing their emergency disembarkation? The fact that the outline of the model can't accommodate them all seems like a bogus restriction, as they couldn't fit onto the model either, but they were all allowed there.
That's certainly outside the rules, but the rules don't spell out in this case whether the models have to be placed ENTIRELY within the outline of the model, or simply placed with a portion of their base within the outline of the model. The most restrictive reading of the rules would indicate that they must be entirely within the outline of the model, but if someone is reading the rules that strictly, you might suggest that they need a wire frame outline prepared for all of their transports, so that we can be sure of the exact dimensions of each one.
Modelling for an advantage is not an activity, it's a concept.
Arguably, anything but the standard model in a static pose could be modelling for an advantage.
Some advantages may not be obvious, some may not even be real.
One thing is sure: the latest model on its provided base in a static pose cannot possibly be wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Butcha wrote: The most restrictive reading of the rules would indicate that they must be entirely within the outline of the model, but if someone is reading the rules that strictly, you might suggest that they need a wire frame outline prepared for all of their transports, so that we can be sure of the exact dimensions of each one.
I just place dice around the areas not already delimited by charging models. It's really easy to play by the rules you know
Well just have to disagree on that one then, to me if you are overlapping you are way beyond even base to base and that for me would fully justify being in the place where the vehicle was.
Page 108 says you are 'in' terrain if any part of the base is overlapping it. If the vehicle was wrecked and a model moved so its base was half over the wreckage then it would be 'in the wreckage' I cant see any reason why overlapping the footprint doesn't legally satisfy the requirements quoted above.
Someone should take a Rhino, take 10 tactical marines, and try to place them "fully within the base of the exploded vehicle". If you can, then modeling for advantage shouldn't be allowed. If you can't, then the rules imply that the bases should be placed in the shadow of the vehicle, but don't have to be fully within.
wtnind wrote: You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as). Incidentally you are now asserting that the ENTIRE base has to be within it, which is a change from your original post (which mentioned majority).
Here is a question, "If 2 models overlap, are they occupying the same space?"
I have always asserted that the entire base needs to be where the vehicle used to be, because that is how the rules are written. (Re-read my original post, I never mentioned that partial base was okay).
If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?
If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?
Read that again carefully, that does not say what you think it says...
If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?
Read that again carefully, that does not say what you think it says...
Whatever.
It comes down to this:
If part of a models base overlaps the location where another model used to be, has that model been placed where another model used to be? I say yes, you say no.
Your not going to change my opinion on the matter, im not going to change yours and I'm fine to leave it at that.
If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?
Read that again carefully, that does not say what you think it says...
Whatever.
It comes down to this:
If part of a models base overlaps the location where another model used to be, has that model been placed where another model used to be? I say yes, you say no.
Your not going to change my opinion on the matter, im not going to change yours and I'm fine to leave it at that.
Well is the model where the vehicle used to be?
If any part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be then you can not in good faith answer Yes to that question.
Bottom line is, your argument is incorrect, because clearly a part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, and is clearly breaking a rule.
Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.
Can the same not be said for having models on the board where the model was not touching the board? Are they hovering in the air in the case of transports that are on flight bases? Are they on the board in any other place then where the treads on the tanks were? All of these things are acceptable where being outside of the footprint is not?
Jimsolo wrote: Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.
No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'
Therefore you can only place a model where the vehicle used to be and may not place the model where the vehicle was not.
In the diagram I posted, #1 and #2 are where the vehicle used to be, #3 is partially where the vehicle used to be, but it is also partially where the vehicle was not, and as such breaks the rule.
Bottom line is, your argument is incorrect, because clearly a part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, and is clearly breaking a rule.
I refer you to my previous post
Which is still an incorrect argument.
Where the vehicle used to be, excludes where the vehicle was not.
Your method advocates placing part of the model where the vehicle was not and as such breaks a rule.
The base is a part of the model. If part of the base is not where the vehicle used to be (Note the model has to be where the vehicle used to be) then part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be,a nd that breaks a rule because the model needs to be where the vehicle used to be.
Jimsolo wrote: So does a model Deep Striking have to be all the way within 6" of a Locator Beacon to gain the benefit?
Why would it, that's measuring, which is clear on how you handle unis within X inches of one another...
Does a model have to have its entire base within 12" of a Blessing with a twelve inch range to be affected?
Why would it, that's measuring, which is clear on how you handle unis within X inches of one another...
Is a model whose base edge is 5.5 inches away from an Archon with the Armor of Misery immune to it?
Why would it, that's measuring, which is clear on how you handle unis within X inches of one another...
I see what you're saying, and it might even make sense, I just can't think of a single other example that works that way unless explicitly stated.
Except all those deal with measuring between units, this situation is totally different because we are not dealing with measuring between unis, since there is only one unit involved. The vehicle is no longer a unit, nor is it even on the table anymore.
'Put this thing inside a space bounded by this shape' seems like measuring to me.
In any event, it sure seems more reasonable to approach it like conventional measuring than trying to assign some other way to do it which is not spelled out explicitly. Otherwise vehicles with unusual shapes like Venoms, Wave Serpents, Ghost Arks, and the Tantalus become absolutely absurd.
Jimsolo wrote: 'Put this thing inside a space bounded by this shape' seems like measuring to me.
In any event, it sure seems more reasonable to approach it like conventional measuring than trying to assign some other way to do it which is not spelled out explicitly. Otherwise vehicles with unusual shapes like Venoms, Wave Serpents, Ghost Arks, and the Tantalus become absolutely absurd.
Measuring between units is a defined process, one that can not be followed when placing models where the vehicle used to be. (This is because we only have one unit to work with, as the other is destroyed and has been removed from the board).
So you simply place the surviving passengers where the vehicle used to be.
If there is a part of the model that is not where the vehicle used to be, you have broken the rule about placing the surviving passengers where the vehicle used to be.
Jimsolo wrote: Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.
No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'.
This in incorrect. GW very clearly uses the term "wholly within" when they mean exactly that. Your interpretation is just that.. yours.
Jimsolo wrote: Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.
No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'.
This in incorrect. GW very clearly uses the term "wholly within" when they mean exactly that. Your interpretation is just that.. yours.
Here is the thing, they don't use within at all here, so there is no reason for them to use "wholly within"
It is not my interpretation, it is the RAW.
Since they tell you the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" and no mention of within, if you have any part of the model that is not "where the vehicle used to be" then you have broken that rule.
Jimsolo wrote: Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.
No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'.
This in incorrect. GW very clearly uses the term "wholly within" when they mean exactly that. Your interpretation is just that.. yours.
Here is the thing, they don't use within at all here, so there is no reason for them to use "wholly within"
It is not my interpretation, it is the RAW.
Since they tell you the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" and no mention of within, if you have any part of the model that is not "where the vehicle used to be" then you have broken that rule.
"Used to be" contains zero language stating what you claim. Therefore it cannot be RAW.
DeathReaper, What does 'All other Objects' mean in the Measuring Distance Rules?
The Rule is badly written to begin with, it says to measure between Objects from their base but examples of 'objects' include things without bases, but the Measurement Rules tell us that they are used for all things known as 'objects.'
JinxDragon wrote: DeathReaper,
What does 'All other Objects' mean in the Measuring Distance Rules?
The Rule is badly written to begin with, it says to measure between Objects from their base but examples of 'objects' include things without bases, but the Measurement Rules tell us that they are used for all things known as 'objects.'
except the vehicle has been removed, there is no other object.
Fragile wrote: Yup, its says that as long as any part of the model is where the vehicle used to be then it is indeed where it "used to be"
No different than "on the base" for the Twisted copse or "in Moonscape craters". aka the new area terrains
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote: The red area is definitely not where the vehicle used to be.
Therefore a rule is broken by #3.
The white of 3 is indeed where it "used to be." Therefore the model is where is "used to be"
Incorrect, the model is partially where the vehicle used to be.
The red is clearly not where the vehicle used to be, therefore the model is not where the vehicle used to be. The rule has been broken.
It is the same debate as when people said that models in reserve had to move on the table, and they claimed that 0.000001 inches fulfilled the requirement, however this was also not true as it did not say to move partially on the table. (As noted in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/315833.page)
It is, because GW clearly states when they require "wholly within" or "completely within" to be a requirement. Disembarking and Linebreaker have those requirements. Vehicles blowing up do not.
So to make sure I have this straight DeathReaper. The models have to be placed wholly where the models used to be. So models taller than their transport (due to say banners) are auto removed correct? Likewise any models that don't float are auto destroyed whenever a Skimmer is destroyed? This is your interpretation correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact I'm struggling to think of a single incidence where a model can be legally placed wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by its transport.
FlingitNow wrote: So to make sure I have this straight DeathReaper. The models have to be placed wholly where the models used to be. So models taller than their transport (due to say banners) are auto removed correct? Likewise any models that don't float are auto destroyed whenever a Skimmer is destroyed? This is your interpretation correct?
No that it not my interpretation.
The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"
That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.
As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.
Fragile wrote: It is, because GW clearly states when they require "wholly within" or "completely within" to be a requirement. Disembarking and Linebreaker have those requirements. Vehicles blowing up do not.
Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply.
It is not fulfilling the rule about "where the vehicle used to be" since there is a part of the model not where the vehicle used to be you have broken that rule.
If the rule is to have it so every model HAS to be 100% WITHIN the same area the vehicle originated...then they screwed the pooch, because i don't think it would be possible to fit 20 Boyz in the same spot as a Battle Wagon, let alone if you have a Warboss and/or Big Mek with them. Why they would allow a 20 model carry limit with that idea in mind is wholeheartedly stupid. And yes, despite GW having shoddy rules at times, that would be far too large an oversight to not get a proper FAQ. I think people are reaching when they say you need them to all stand exactly within the outline of the destroyed vehicle. It would be too restrictive of certain armies, either on purpose or on accident. Doesn't sit right. And I don't think I've EVER seen a single battle report or played a single game that plays in such a ridiculous manner.
FlingitNow wrote: So to make sure I have this straight DeathReaper. The models have to be placed wholly where the models used to be. So models taller than their transport (due to say banners) are auto removed correct? Likewise any models that don't float are auto destroyed whenever a Skimmer is destroyed? This is your interpretation correct?
No that it not my interpretation.
The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"
That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.
As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.
Fragile wrote: It is, because GW clearly states when they require "wholly within" or "completely within" to be a requirement. Disembarking and Linebreaker have those requirements. Vehicles blowing up do not.
Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply.
It is not fulfilling the rule about "where the vehicle used to be" since there is a part of the model not where the vehicle used to be you have broken that rule.
To me, your interpretation is what is messing this up. Like what FlingitNow's examples, I see that your interpretation makes this more difficult than it should be.
Going by your interpretation, I believe it is impossible to put a model where a vehicle used to be. In your diagram, the models are only partially where the vehicle used to be. To put them completely where they used to be, I would have to take each model and smash it into a thin paste and spread it entirely over the vehicle's footprint, since the vehicle was in a larger space than what a passenger could possibly be in. This example only fulfills two dimensions of the vehicle as well (Length and width) and cannot possible fill the height dimension.
Your interpretation in this scenario makes placing passengers where the vehicle used to be impossible.
The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"
That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.
As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.
How do you place a Space Marine wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by the Rhino before it exploded? The tracks of the Rhino (the only part touching the ground) are not as wide as a 25mm base. In fact can you even come up with a single incidence where it is possible to place a model wholly where its transport used to be?
The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"
That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.
As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.
How do you place a Space Marine wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by the Rhino before it exploded? The tracks of the Rhino (the only part touching the ground) are not as wide as a 25mm base. In fact can you even come up with a single incidence where it is possible to place a model wholly where its transport used to be?
This. Check my previous post at the bottom of the previous page. I agree completely here. It is impossible to put a passenger where a vehicle used to be, because the passenger takes up a smaller 3 dimensional amount of space.
Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply..
It does apply, you are trying to take wording out of context and twist it to your definition. "Wholly within" and "within" or "in" are applied exactly where GW needs them. Your vehicle blowing up is not one of them.
Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply..
It does apply, you are trying to take wording out of context and twist it to your definition. "Wholly within" and "within" or "in" are applied exactly where GW needs them. Your vehicle blowing up is not one of them.
Measuring between units does not apply to this situation.
Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply..
It does apply, you are trying to take wording out of context and twist it to your definition. "Wholly within" and "within" or "in" are applied exactly where GW needs them. Your vehicle blowing up is not one of them.
Measuring between units does not apply to this situation.
Answer the question. How do you place a Space Marine wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by the Rhino before it exploded? The tracks of the Rhino (the only part touching the ground) are not as wide as a 25mm base. In fact can you even come up with a single incidence where it is possible to place a model wholly where its transport used to be?
If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.
DeathReaper wrote: If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.
So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct?
DeathReaper wrote: If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.
So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct?
I think we all should agree that Deathreaper interpreted this rule into impossibile scenerio. RAW, you cannot place passengers where the vehicle used to be. SO...RAI, put the damn squad as best and as reasonable as you can where the vehicle used to be.
Happyjew wrote: DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?
Then if you can't place them in the case of skimmers what vehicle can you place them for? By the reading of your post, that the models have to be placed where the vehicle was, can you RAW place them for any exploded transport in the game?
DeathReaper wrote: If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.
That's why i love following YMDC threads. People inevitably come up with "grot gunners can't shoot guns cause they have no ranged weapons to shoot the guns instead of them as written in the Big Holy Bible Rule Book".
Happyjew wrote: DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?
RAW, where the vehicle used to be.
Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.
Happyjew wrote: DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?
RAW, where the vehicle used to be.
Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.
Just place them hovering in the air. BRB doesn't disallow it!
Happyjew wrote: DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?
RAW, where the vehicle used to be.
Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.
Happyjew wrote: DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?
RAW, where the vehicle used to be.
Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.
Just place them hovering in the air. BRB doesn't disallow it!
We're it anything but an Ork vehicle, I may be persuaded to think it's modelling for advantage.
But Ork vehicles are supposed to be irregular and it stands to reason there would be big ones and small ones. An Ork player I know has battlewagons made out of Land Raiders, which are nowhere near the size / shape of the current model from GW.
Happyjew wrote: DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?
RAW, where the vehicle used to be.
Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.
Just place them hovering in the air. BRB doesn't disallow it!
Then claim WMS !
But then the models will be taller than the transport...
Melevolence wrote: If the rule is to have it so every model HAS to be 100% WITHIN the same area the vehicle originated...then they screwed the pooch, because i don't think it would be possible to fit 20 Boyz in the same spot as a Battle Wagon, let alone if you have a Warboss and/or Big Mek with them. Why they would allow a 20 model carry limit with that idea in mind is wholeheartedly stupid. And yes, despite GW having shoddy rules at times, that would be far too large an oversight to not get a proper FAQ. I think people are reaching when they say you need them to all stand exactly within the outline of the destroyed vehicle. It would be too restrictive of certain armies, either on purpose or on accident. Doesn't sit right. And I don't think I've EVER seen a single battle report or played a single game that plays in such a ridiculous manner.
This is exactly what I was thinking. There is no possibime way 18 boys a big Mek and a Warboss could fit in the footprint of a battle wagon. This is the kind of thing that makes me want to cry about with 40k players. There are 3 pages of "discussion" on a topic that is pretty clear if you apply some common sense. Vehicle exploded put dudes generally where the thing exploded. No need to have debates on the rules. Just put them where the vehicle was nothing confusing about it. People spending too much time thinking about it zaps all the fun out of the game and makes people say GW writes crappy rules. The rules are fine most of the time if you don't think about it too much and just play the flipping game. I seriously doubt the EXACT placement of dudes after an explosion woul affect the game but about 1% of the time. Don't be a a-hole about it just put the guys down and play on.
Melevolence wrote: If the rule is to have it so every model HAS to be 100% WITHIN the same area the vehicle originated...then they screwed the pooch, because i don't think it would be possible to fit 20 Boyz in the same spot as a Battle Wagon, let alone if you have a Warboss and/or Big Mek with them. Why they would allow a 20 model carry limit with that idea in mind is wholeheartedly stupid. And yes, despite GW having shoddy rules at times, that would be far too large an oversight to not get a proper FAQ. I think people are reaching when they say you need them to all stand exactly within the outline of the destroyed vehicle. It would be too restrictive of certain armies, either on purpose or on accident. Doesn't sit right. And I don't think I've EVER seen a single battle report or played a single game that plays in such a ridiculous manner.
This is exactly what I was thinking. There is no possibime way 18 boys a big Mek and a Warboss could fit in the footprint of a battle wagon. This is the kind of thing that makes me want to cry about with 40k players. There are 3 pages of "discussion" on a topic that is pretty clear if you apply some common sense. Vehicle exploded put dudes generally where the thing exploded. No need to have debates on the rules. Just put them where the vehicle was nothing confusing about it. People spending too much time thinking about it zaps all the fun out of the game and makes people say GW writes crappy rules. The rules are fine most of the time if you don't think about it too much and just play the flipping game. I seriously doubt the EXACT placement of dudes after an explosion woul affect the game but about 1% of the time. Don't be a a-hole about it just put the guys down and play on.
No the whole point of RaI is that it is the actual rules. As in the rules as intended by the Design team when they designed them. Not the rules as you'd like them to be, or rules as you think makes sense, or rules that allow you to do what you want. RaI is the rules as designed by the design team what they actually meant when they wrote the rules.
No the whole point of RaI is that it is the actual rules. As in the rules as intended by the Design team when they designed them. Not the rules as you'd like them to be, or rules as you think makes sense, or rules that allow you to do what you want. RaI is the rules as designed by the design team what they actually meant when they wrote the rules.
Goodness gracious!!! Now someone steps in to argue what RAI means. No wonder the rules topics go on forever. By this definition only a handful of people, at best, who actually wrote the rules could ever use the term RAI. People are so pedantic about things. How about you think of RAI as Rules As Interpreted (instead of INTENDED). Give the whole thing a rest.
I think the example I gave of 18 boys, a big mek, and a warboss is pretty clear. They all can't fit into the footprint of a battle wagon but the rules say it is allowed to carry that many. So what is supposed to happen when it explodes? Put the guys generally where the thing was. Any other INTERPRETATION is overly pedantic about the RAW. If someone held me to something so dumb as that, I am pretty sure that is the last game I would have with them. so I suppose if you want to INTERPRET the rule in some other way go ahead, but expect to be playing with your plastic army men all by yourself soon enough.
If we take DeathReaper's diagram and now say the square is ruins.... Would model #3 be considered in ruins?
If area terrain still existed, would model #3 still be in area terrain?
If I have a portion of my base touching the footprint of the removed vehicle, I am where the model used to be. Yes, I am also not where the model used to be as well, but I have fulfilled the rule as stated. There is nothing saying I cannot be outside the footprint.
Yes those guys can get in a Battlewagon and actually those guys can be legally placed they do not have to be placed wholly within the foot print as that interpretation leads to no models being able to be placed (you'd know this if you bothered to read the thread before commenting).
You can know what RaI to a reasonable level without being the author. RaW is no more knowable than RaI if you're talking absolutes. Rules as Interpreted just means "Rules I made up" and trying to use those rules in a game will lead to far more arguments than using RaW. How you play the game in your group is up to you and your group when playing against someone you don't know trying to play as close to RaI as possible is usually the best way to avoid arguments and using RaW as a tie breaker if you can't agree on the RaI.
Yes, building a model to avoid a disadvantage is the definition of modeling for advantage.
There's no rules against this, just the community frowning on it. It'd be considered cheating at many competitive events.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes those guys can get in a Battlewagon and actually those guys can be legally placed they do not have to be placed wholly within the foot print as that interpretation leads to no models being able to be placed (you'd know this if you bothered to read the thread before commenting).
You can know what RaI to a reasonable level without being the author. RaW is no more knowable than RaI if you're talking absolutes. Rules as Interpreted just means "Rules I made up" and trying to use those rules in a game will lead to far more arguments than using RaW. How you play the game in your group is up to you and your group when playing against someone you don't know trying to play as close to RaI as possible is usually the best way to avoid arguments and using RaW as a tie breaker if you can't agree on the RaI.
Loborocket wrote: By this definition only a handful of people, at best, who actually wrote the rules could ever use the term RAI.
That's correct.
'RAI' is a frequently mis-used term, and is far too often applied to 'Rules as I Think They Should Be' instead of actually what was intended.
I think the example I gave of 18 boys, a big mek, and a warboss is pretty clear. They all can't fit into the footprint of a battle wagon but the rules say it is allowed to carry that many. So what is supposed to happen when it explodes?
Any models that can't fit are destroyed.
You can call it 'pedantic' if you want, but that's how (from my experience) it's been widely played for the last 3 editions.
Loborocket wrote: By this definition only a handful of people, at best, who actually wrote the rules could ever use the term RAI.
That's correct.
'RAI' is a frequently mis-used term, and is far too often applied to 'Rules as I Think They Should Be' instead of actually what was intended.
I think the example I gave of 18 boys, a big mek, and a warboss is pretty clear. They all can't fit into the footprint of a battle wagon but the rules say it is allowed to carry that many. So what is supposed to happen when it explodes?
Any models that can't fit are destroyed.
You can call it 'pedantic' if you want, but that's how (from my experience) it's been widely played for the last 3 editions.
Ok so you are saying when a battle wagon goes boom the best I can get is 12 dudes the Mek and the warboss? See picture for reference.
Seems pretty lame to me. I guess I will not be playing you anytime soon. I have never seen it played this way. Different strokes I guess.
Far to pedantic interpretation of the RAW for me. Interpreted to perversion to gain an undo advantage. The game is an abstraction NOT a simulation. How in the hell do you explain why the capacity would be 20 if the model would not even fit that many? Way to specific for my taste. Again I will say stupid stuff like this takes all the fun out of the game. Pretty sure that is not the intention of the game designers.
Remember you just have to touch the area where the Battlewagon was so you could easily fit more on there. Unless you're going but the wholly within the area where the BW was in which case none of your models are (or can ever be) legally placed.
FlingitNow wrote: Remember you just have to touch the area where the Battlewagon was so you could easily fit more on there. Unless you're going but the wholly within the area where the BW was in which case none of your models are (or can ever be) legally placed.
I thought that is what the discussion was. If "wholly within the area" meant I can have part of the base outside the footprint. The way my picture show they are all "wholly within the footprint" if the base just has to touch then yeah all 20 will fit. That is my basic arguement. They are generaly in the area of the wagon.
FlingitNow wrote: Remember you just have to touch the area where the Battlewagon was so you could easily fit more on there. Unless you're going but the wholly within the area where the BW was in which case none of your models are (or can ever be) legally placed.
I thought that is what the discussion was. If "wholly within the area" meant I can have part of the base outside the footprint. The way my picture show they are all "wholly within the footprint" if the base just has to touch then yeah all 20 will fit. That is my basic arguement. They are generaly in the area of the wagon.
The only person arguing this bowed out a page or so ago. Honestly there is not much keeping this alive.
Loborocket wrote: Ok so you are saying when a battle wagon goes boom the best I can get is 12 dudes the Mek and the warboss? See picture for reference.
If that's all that fit, then yes. For what it's worth, I have the same problem with my Orks... It's just one of those things.
The game is an abstraction NOT a simulation.
Well, of course it is. In a simulation, we wouldn't have the vehicle just disappearing in a cloud of smoke leaving the unit standing around in the crater. Nor would we have guys dying when they try to climb out of their transport and discover that there is nowhere to go. Or units with jump packs bouncing back off over the horizon when one guy lands on a rock. Or gigantic hover tanks being destroyed when they would deep land on a gretchin.
The game is full of abstractions. This is just one of them, made for convenience and consistency. Ultimately, the guys not fitting into the footprint being destroyed is no more absurd than guys being destroyed when they are forced to disembark and have nowhere to go.
How in the hell do you explain why the capacity would be 20 if the model would not even fit that many?
I would explain it as simply one more example of GW not making their vehicle models big enough, and not stopping to consider the potential consequences of that.
col_impact wrote: Is there a rule which prevents you from jumbling bases on top of each other? If we are being pedantic . . .
Lol, yes there is.
Really? Can you point me to it? I was having trouble finding it.
Still looking for a rule that says I can't jumble bases on top of each other. Also, is there anything preventing me from stacking a Land Raider on top of another Land Raider?
Col_Impact,
If you do deploy Models on top of each other keep in mind that it will be forbidden from moving. I, personally, despise the Vertical Movement Rules as they are nothing more then a hack-and-paste job from 6th Editions Ruin Rules and do not fit into measuring all Vertical Movements at all. As it was originally designed for Ruins, it is not surprising that the they only work for Models Moving vertically up and down floors of a Ruin, but when you apply it to something like a Hill or a Model standing on top of a Land Raider....
Well, now we have to trace that movement through another Model, and what is the Rule about moving through another Model?
JinxDragon wrote: Col_Impact,
If you do deploy Models on top of each other keep in mind that it will be forbidden from moving. I, personally, despise the Vertical Movement Rules as they are nothing more then a hack-and-paste job from 6th Editions Ruin Rules and do not fit into measuring all Vertical Movements at all. As it was originally designed for Ruins, it is not surprising that the they only work for Models Moving vertically up and down floors of a Ruin, but when you apply it to something like a Hill or a Model standing on top of a Land Raider....
Well, now we have to trace that movement through another Model, and what is the Rule about moving through another Model?
col_impact wrote: Okay, fair enough. Now does placing count as moving? At this point I am just doing this as a pedantic exercise. Not claiming anything.
Do you want your models stuck together for the entire game? Because you'd have to move or pivot through another model if you overlap them.
col_impact wrote: Okay, fair enough. Now does placing count as moving? At this point I am just doing this as a pedantic exercise. Not claiming anything.
Do you want your models stuck together for the entire game? Because you'd have to move or pivot through another model if you overlap them.
Given a choice between models that are killed outright and models that can't move, I take models that can't move every time.
@insaniak The rule does not use footprint. It states where the vehicle was. If you read that as only where the two dimensions cover you are not following the rule. Why is it not ok to be outside the footprint but ok to be somewhere the vehicle was not, such as over the roof or touching the ground where no part of the vehicle does?
Gravmyr wrote: @insaniak The rule does not use footprint. It states where the vehicle was.
Yes... and was the vehicle anywhere that the vehicle wasn't?
Why is it not ok to be outside the footprint but ok to be somewhere the vehicle was not, such as over the roof or touching the ground where no part of the vehicle does?
Because assuming that 'where the vehicle was' only includes those spots where the vehicle was physically touching the table makes it largely impossible for any model to ever escape an exploded vehicle?
That is exactly my point. You are willing to ignore what the wording is for one measurement but not for the other two. That inherently makes any discussion of placing virtually any model a RAI discussion. At that point you need to decide what in the rules allows you to make a decision that will only affect some armies.
Gravmyr wrote: That is exactly my point. You are willing to ignore what the wording is for one measurement but not for the other two.
Yes, I am. Because one, while restrictive, allows the rules to function, while the other is absurd.
That inherently makes any discussion of placing virtually any model a RAI discussion.
Indeed it does. I thought that was clear from my first post, where I pointed out that this was how I have seen it played for the last 3 editions, rather than claiming that it was RAW.
At that point you need to decide what in the rules allows you to make a decision that will only affect some armies.
Personally, I aim for the decision that requires the least alteration of the rules in order to allow them to function.
Assuming that 'where the vehicle was' means its footprint requires less bending than assuming that it means the vehicle's footprint and an undefined area around it.
Does it require less bending though? If you look at the space a model such as a truck leaves under it and then look at the amount the bases of all the models would take up are they about the same? How about any of the tanks? How about the eldar transports? At the end of the day you are basically penalizing poor scale for some armies. I don't feel that is in the intent of the rules nor the spirit of the game.
'Where the vehicle was' should mean 'where the vehicle was'... Not 'near where the vehicle was'.
If you look at the space a model such as a truck leaves under it and then look at the amount the bases of all the models would take up are they about the same? How about any of the tanks? How about the eldar transports? At the end of the day you are basically penalizing poor scale for some armies. I don't feel that is in the intent of the rules nor the spirit of the game.
That's a matter of scale and what you choose to put in the transport, not an issue of rules.
You could as easily ask if we should be allowed to ignore the Deep Strike Mishap rules as they 'penalise' units on large bases worse than units on small ones. The fact that 10 terminators are more likely to mishap than 10 Swooping Hawks isn't a sign that the rules need to be changed. It's just a side-effect of different things in the game being a different size.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: The left foot of the model is where the vehicle was... the right foot is not.
Is the model where the vehicle was?
No. Only a part of the model is where the vehicle was.
GW is explicit when they word things that require the model to be "wholly within". Linebreaker and Disembarking. This is not one of those cases.
No, this is a case of a rule that is just horribly vague.
No. Only a part of the model is where the vehicle was.
GW is explicit when they word things that require the model to be "wholly within". Linebreaker and Disembarking. This is not one of those cases.
No, this is a case of a rule that is just horribly vague.
It really isnt. Your adding words and putting intent behind your interpretation. A model touching the outline of that transport box is where the transport used to be.
Loborocket wrote: Ok so you are saying when a battle wagon goes boom the best I can get is 12 dudes the Mek and the warboss? See picture for reference.
If that's all that fit, then yes. For what it's worth, I have the same problem with my Orks... It's just one of those things.
The game is an abstraction NOT a simulation.
Well, of course it is. In a simulation, we wouldn't have the vehicle just disappearing in a cloud of smoke leaving the unit standing around in the crater. Nor would we have guys dying when they try to climb out of their transport and discover that there is nowhere to go. Or units with jump packs bouncing back off over the horizon when one guy lands on a rock. Or gigantic hover tanks being destroyed when they would deep land on a gretchin.
The game is full of abstractions. This is just one of them, made for convenience and consistency. Ultimately, the guys not fitting into the footprint being destroyed is no more absurd than guys being destroyed when they are forced to disembark and have nowhere to go.
How in the hell do you explain why the capacity would be 20 if the model would not even fit that many?
I would explain it as simply one more example of GW not making their vehicle models big enough, and not stopping to consider the potential consequences of that.
Well sorry I am placing all 20 (or however many survive the explosion). If someone as an issue with that they can find a different opponent. As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better. The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. I guess I hope more people see it my way than yours, or I will run out of opponents to play army men with.
Fragile wrote: A model touching the outline of that transport box is where the transport used to be.
No, it isn't. It's just nearby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gravmyr wrote: Isn't a matter of rules though? How are you fitting the number of boys on the trukk if they don't fit into the footprint?
I'm not sure what you mean. There is no requirement to physically fit the models onto the truck, any more than you need to stuff your marines inside their rhino.
That is the point. They have the models in front of them. Looks like we can fit 12 models in it..... but let's write a rule that states it can hold 20...... poor rule writing.
Loborocket wrote: As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better.
This is more a case of the model being fine within the rules as they existed when the model was released, but them the rules being changed in a way that hadn't been factored into the model design.
When the battlewagon was released, an Exploded result just made the passengers disembark in the normal manner.
The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. .
This is predicated on your interpretation being the correct one. Assuming that when the rules say 'where the vehicle was' they mean 'where the vehicle was' is not actually less logical than assuming it means 'more or less where the vehicle was'.
And I'm not really setting how that interpretation is any more 'pedantic' than following any other rule. You're only seeing it as overly pedantic because you disagree with it.
Loborocket wrote: As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better.
This is more a case of the model being fine within the rules as they existed when the model was released, but them the rules being changed in a way that hadn't been factored into the model design.
When the battlewagon was released, an Exploded result just made the passengers disembark in the normal manner.
The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. .
This is predicated on your interpretation being the correct one. Assuming that when the rules say 'where the vehicle was' they mean 'where the vehicle was' is not actually less logical than assuming it means 'more or less where the vehicle was'.
And I'm not really setting how that interpretation is any more 'pedantic' than following any other rule. You're only seeing it as overly pedantic because you disagree with it.
So why is there not any language in the rules about how to define where the Vehicle was, or what happens when models don't fit where the vehicle was? Like ther are for emergency disembarkation? Just a oversight I guess. You would think if it was a thing that caused the removal of models it would be more spelled out rather than left to open interpretation.
Loborocket wrote: So why is there not any language in the rules about how to define where the Vehicle was, ...
Because the rule is badly written.
So it's left to us to determine for ourselves what makes the most sense within the rules that we are given.
...or what happens when models don't fit where the vehicle was?
We are quite explicitly told what happens to models that can't be placed where the vehicle was. They are removed as casualties.
You would think if it was a thing that caused the removal of models it would be more spelled out rather than left to open interpretation.
Welcome to 40K.
Unfortunately, this sort of loose wording is all too common from GW, and it's made worse by their recently developed mindset that FAQs are bad as they foster a 'cult of personality' following for their studio.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?
.
Models, not units. Only one unit fits in the vehicle.
And the answer is 'Because the vehicle is smaller than it should be to carry 20 models' combined with '20 models take up more space on the table than they would if they weren't mounted on big plastic discs'.
Loborocket wrote: So why is there not any language in the rules about how to define where the Vehicle was, ...
Because the rule is badly written.
So it's left to us to determine for ourselves what makes the most sense within the rules that we are given.
...or what happens when models don't fit where the vehicle was?
We are quite explicitly told what happens to models that can't be placed where the vehicle was. They are removed as casualties.
You would think if it was a thing that caused the removal of models it would be more spelled out rather than left to open interpretation.
Welcome to 40K.
Unfortunately, this sort of loose wording is all too common from GW, and it's made worse by their recently developed mindset that FAQs are bad as they foster a 'cult of personality' following for their studio.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?
.
Models, not units. Only one unit fits in the vehicle.
And the answer is 'Because the vehicle is smaller than it should be to carry 20 models' combined with '20 models take up more space on the table than they would if they weren't mounted on big plastic discs'.
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well. If you have to invoke wobbly model syndrome and overlap a sliver of the footprint on placement then so be it.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
How so?
There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
How so?
There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.
Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.
If the rules are stupid here then you implement a non-stupid procedure going forward.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
How so?
There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.
Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.
If the rules are stupid here then you implement a non-stupid procedure going forward.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?
I am not making a RAW argument
This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
How so?
There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.
Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.
If the rules are stupid here then you implement a non-stupid procedure going forward.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?
I am not making a RAW argument
This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.
I am a necron player so this never affect me. I just don't want to see an Ork player removing models over a stupid inconsistency in the game. It is stupid and inconsistent for 20 models to fit in a vehicle at one point and not fit in a vehicle at another point.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?
I am not making a RAW argument
So where does GW give a non-rules statement to back up your position? If you're making a HYWPI and not a RAW argument you need to state so and please don't try and attribute it to somebody else.
col_impact wrote: If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.
Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?
I am not making a RAW argument
So where does GW give a non-rules statement to back up your position? If you're making a HYWPI and not a RAW argument you need to state so and please don't try and attribute it to somebody else.
Huh? Spare us all the hall monitoring. I labeled my argument as not RAW.
The codex clearly indicates that 20 models can fit in a battlewagon, right? By saying "GW" is saying that permission is granted at the official rules level to indeed put 20 models into a battlewagon.
col_impact wrote: Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.
Logic also says that a guy who is kneeling down could stand up to see over an intervening obstacle. Unfortunately, sometimes the rules fly int he face of logic in the interests of abstraction.
Loborocket wrote: This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.
Seriously, the continual snide comments are not constructive.
I'll say it again: I'm an Ork player. I have a unit of Nobs with a Warboss and Mek in a Battlewagon. I've played against exactly 3 Ork players in the last 5 years, none of whom did have said unit. So my interpretation here is far more likely to hurt me rather than an opponent.
Sportsmanship isn't an issue here. And 'common sense' is highly variable from player to player. You think it makes more sense to allow the models to be placed. I think it makes more sense to follow the interpretation that requires the least bending of the rules. I don't feel any particular need to insult you for having a different opinion over the best way to play with your toy soldiers, and would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
col_impact wrote: Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.
Logic also says that a guy who is kneeling down could stand up to see over an intervening obstacle. Unfortunately, sometimes the rules fly int he face of logic in the interests of abstraction.
Loborocket wrote: This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.
Seriously, the continual snide comments are not constructive.
I'll say it again: I'm an Ork player. I have a unit of Nobs with a Warboss and Mek in a Battlewagon. I've played against exactly 3 Ork players in the last 5 years, none of whom did have said unit. So my interpretation here is far more likely to hurt me rather than an opponent.
Sportsmanship isn't an issue here. And 'common sense' is highly variable from player to player. You think it makes more sense to allow the models to be placed. I think it makes more sense to follow the interpretation that requires the least bending of the rules. I don't feel any particular need to insult you for having a different opinion over the best way to play with your toy soldiers, and would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
I am all for pure RAW if that's the way people are going to play it through and through. However, once you start intervening, why not just bend the rules here to the point it makes logical sense and not just the merest bending of the rules?
col_impact wrote: Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.
No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.
"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).
On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.
If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?
Because you are trying to apply real life physics to an abstract rules system, this is a mistake, do not do this.
col_impact wrote: Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.
No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.
"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).
On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.
One model on top of another model in a deployment zone will still both be in a deployment zone. Anyway its not something I would do, only something that I could do in the rules.
DeathReaper wrote: If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?
col_impact wrote: Because you are trying to apply real life physics to an abstract rules system, this is a mistake, do not do this.
Do you play pure RAW in all aspects of 40k? Unless you say yes then you cannot critique my hang up on this issue.
Like I said, I do not mind playing pure RAW as long as it is pure RAW all the way through and through.
col_impact wrote: Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.
No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.
"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).
On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.
One model on top of another model in a deployment zone will still both be in a deployment zone. Anyway its not something I would do, only something that I could do in the rules.
Incorrect, the rules are written assuming you are moving and deploying on the battlefield which is terrain.
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."(Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section).
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
DeathReaper wrote: If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?
col_impact wrote: Because you are trying to apply real life physics to an abstract rules system, this is a mistake, do not do this.
Do you play pure RAW in all aspects of 40k? Unless you say yes then you cannot critique my hang up on this issue.
Like I said, I do not mind playing pure RAW as long as it is pure RAW all the way through and through.
Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.
Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.
The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.
What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).
As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.
col_impact wrote: Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.
No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.
"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).
On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.
One model on top of another model in a deployment zone will still both be in a deployment zone. Anyway its not something I would do, only something that I could do in the rules.
Incorrect, the rules are written assuming you are moving and deploying on the battlefield which is terrain.
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."(Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section).
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
You need to polish up on what is considered to be a Deployment Zone. I can put a model on top of another model and still be "12 inches away from the centerline"
Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.
Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.
The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.
What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).
As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.
You are simply restating what you said earlier. So I will restate mine. Do you play 100% RAW? If the answer is no, then you have no business taking me to task on something that I think should be changed from dumb to logical. Again, like I said, I have no problem playing RAW as long as it is 100% RAW.
The rule is vaguely written, so a certain amount of interpretation is required.
The difference of opinion here is just about how far to take that.
The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be". If you take the former interpretation then the only model that could ever be placed was the vehicle itself, heck even a different model of the same vehicle wouldn't workas antennai, guns & gubbins could be positioned slightly differently or tge paint might be slightly thicker or thinner applied or there maybe different glue markers/gaps/green stuff etc.
The later is therefore the only possible RaW interpretation. It fortunately lines up with the likely RaI from vehicle sizes vs transport capacities. So why play anything else?
FlingitNow wrote: The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".
Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.
FlingitNow wrote: The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".
Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.
So where the tracks were touching the table correct?
FlingitNow wrote: The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".
Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.
So where the tracks were touching the table correct?
I can see this trending towards: "What about Eldar transports?" Their base being a very small area on the table.
Ultimately i'd agree that the rule is too vague. And applying a strict "Area" below the vehicle (Where it touches the ground? 3D Volume where it used to be?) is "not vague enough" for such a vague rule.
To me "placed where the vehicle used to be" is pretty much the same as saying "placed in this general location".
The placed Unit must still abide to certain rules: Can it be placed within 1" of an enemy?
What if an Unit surrounded the Vehicle in Close Combat and explodes it? Your defined "Area" is going to have to be much smaller, and may only fit one or 2 bases...
Well Skimmers have no direct footprint on the table Rhinos have 2 thin tracks that touch the table like most non skimmers or they just have a few wheels touching the ground so by Insaniak's new interpretation everyone always dies whenever a vehicle explodes. Surrounding a vehicle before destroying it does normally kill pretty much everyone if not every one. But to say this is always the case for exploding vehicles even from a distance as Insaniak's new interpretation leads to is fairly ludicrous.
FlingitNow wrote: The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".
Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.
The only area on the table where the Vehicle was is where the tracks touch the table.
I saw that argument coming miles away... But i think the kinder point of it was that your interpretation is very subjective:
How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. If i recall correctly, the Vehicle is removed prior to placing models, you must make a note of size (Top View? Picture?) and then place models after you rolled To Wound on the Unit.
The entire "Explodes" method is missing crucial guidelines your interpretation would need.
How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .
The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.
Oh, my apologies then, i must have missed when it became HIWPI, for some reason i though we were discussing the RaW: "placed where the vehicle used to be"
Just out of curiosity, but: Would you use the same method for placing a Unit that was embarked in a Night Schythe?
Skipping the "corners" part, how do you count the "central hole"?
At this point, I think the argument now comes down to a simple question:
If the model being placed is partially inside the footprint (i.e. DeathReaper's #3 in the diagram), does it satisfy the rule "place where the vehicle was." I happen to be in the camp that if one foot is in, it satisfies this requirement. Others claim you need "both feet" to be wholly within the footprint. I cannot imagine you are going to find any rule in the BRB that is going to be that specific to define this clearly. So, for you American Football fans, it comes down to whether you want to use college or pro rules for determining if the model is "in bounds."
The only time I can see "not placeable" models being invoked is if the dead vehicle was surrounded when it exploded. Then the 1" away from enemy models comes into play, creating a very distinctive area where you are allowed to place your models.
How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .
The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.
This is pretty much why I think this interpretation is wrong. The rule has no prescriptive way to define the are where the vehicle was, so in your case you drop some dice at the corners, well that is "close" to where the vehicle was but not exactly "where" the vehicle was. So how do you decide if the edge of one models base is violating the edge definition? You really can't, and even if you use the "line" created by connecting the dice, this is still not the exact edge of the vehicle footprint. So in this case it is fairly easy to make errors or "fudge" if a model is going to make it or not. Or what about one of the Necron flying cressent things (is that even a transport, maybe not?) How would that one get defined? A square? In a cressent shape? or what about someone using one of those old era rhino models? Do they lose more guys in an explosion just because the model is smaller? Seems kinda crappy. Or how about a wave serpent it has the 2 jutting out front things, are those counted in the footprint? Just too many questions with the more strict interpretation of the rule. I think is was written vague intentionally as to not have to answer these kind of questions, or negativly affect gameplay because of the artistic decision made when an artist puts together a model or what size model fits in the standard box.
I say dispense with the dice marking the edge, since it is highly inaccurate anyhow, (now the argument is really about whos inaccurate way of model placement is more "right" ) and just place down however many guys survive the explosion in unit coherency. I usually place them in a heap, but you could simply start by placing the first model generally in the middle and work out from there.
I suspect either way it will probably not make a ton of difference to the outcome of the game, I would just not want to be the person forcing someone to remove models because of an overly strict interpretation of the rules. Most of the time if there is ever a question about a rule when I am playing I typically give whatever ruling favors my opponent. I do note it down and check it in more detail later and will probably not play games with that person any more if they are too much of a "rules lawyer" while playing. That kind of game is simply not fun. If you have to spend more than 2 or 3 minutes sorting something out with the rules more than 2x in a game, then the whole flow of the game dies and it becomes un-fun.
A strict use of the rule doesn't work.
So no matter what you need to apply a certain amount of rule-bending to make it practical.
Do you try and bend as little as possible, or once you bend one do you bend them all?
From what I can tell, insaniak's approach is placing them within the rough footprint is a practical method, placing them only partially within is a step to far. Bend the rule as little as possible.
Compared to the other approach, since the model cannot strictly be placed where it was, only partially, only part of the model needs to be placed (allowing for mostly outside placement).
I can see either method as valid, the rule isn't clear enough to favour one side.
One method is to place the models on the table and then place the vehicle over the group and then treat the vehicle as a Template and remove any models that are not hit by the Template.
How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .
The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.
This is pretty much why I think this interpretation is wrong. The rule has no prescriptive way to define the are where the vehicle was, so in your case you drop some dice at the corners, well that is "close" to where the vehicle was but not exactly "where" the vehicle was. So how do you decide if the edge of one models base is violating the edge definition? You really can't, and even if you use the "line" created by connecting the dice, this is still not the exact edge of the vehicle footprint. So in this case it is fairly easy to make errors or "fudge" if a model is going to make it or not. Or what about one of the Necron flying cressent things (is that even a transport, maybe not?) How would that one get defined? A square? In a cressent shape? or what about someone using one of those old era rhino models? Do they lose more guys in an explosion just because the model is smaller? Seems kinda crappy. Or how about a wave serpent it has the 2 jutting out front things, are those counted in the footprint? Just too many questions with the more strict interpretation of the rule. I think is was written vague intentionally as to not have to answer these kind of questions, or negativly affect gameplay because of the artistic decision made when an artist puts together a model or what size model fits in the standard box.
I say dispense with the dice marking the edge, since it is highly inaccurate anyhow, (now the argument is really about whos inaccurate way of model placement is more "right" ) and just place down however many guys survive the explosion in unit coherency. I usually place them in a heap, but you could simply start by placing the first model generally in the middle and work out from there.
I suspect either way it will probably not make a ton of difference to the outcome of the game, I would just not want to be the person forcing someone to remove models because of an overly strict interpretation of the rules. Most of the time if there is ever a question about a rule when I am playing I typically give whatever ruling favors my opponent. I do note it down and check it in more detail later and will probably not play games with that person any more if they are too much of a "rules lawyer" while playing. That kind of game is simply not fun. If you have to spend more than 2 or 3 minutes sorting something out with the rules more than 2x in a game, then the whole flow of the game dies and it becomes un-fun.
I agree on all points. People are just seeing too much in this vague rule. I swear if I ran into a opponent who said my orks that didn't fit into the footprint of a battle wagon were destroyed then I would just walk away from them or just keep playing the game like they are not even there until they whine to a judge and get me kicked out. I would probably even keep playing once the idiot judge sided with my obnoxious opponent. I could easily see them declaring my opponent the winner and then having him remove his models from the table while I am still playing all by myself making pew pew noises. I would only be this obtuse in the face or pure stupidity.
If matters continued like that in future games then I would declare that most vehicles couldn't have passengers survive an explosion. I mean look at those little tracks on the rhino. There is no way you can put a 28mm base fully within the 2D space the tank touched on the table. Maybe a landraider might have a few survives, (unless they were 40mm bases then no way they could fit where the tracks were). Anything on one of the medium sized flying bases (like a wave serpent) would probably have no more than 3 survivors either. You travel into the RAW realms too far and you are just being a jerk plain and simple. Man people really know how to make this game worse than it really is...
I would think that in a rules area that is inconsistent and vague and potentially punishing for some armies much more than other armies that you would take the more generous interpretation so as not to apply a rule with punishing bias against some armies.
In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.
For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.
Loborocket wrote: In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.
For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.
You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation
Loborocket wrote: In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.
For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.
You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation
Do you use the base for the 2D footprint or the model? What rule says what the foot print is? If it is what is touching the game board, then we are talking about really small footprints. I think all of this is just too vague and if we go by RAW it is impossible to have any passengers survive an explosion. "Where the vehicle used to be" is a 3D space that is impossible to use as a complete reference for the placement of survivors.
BTW...does anyone want to take a gander at writing a question for this problem so we can all submit it to someone at GW for a FAQ inclusion?
Loborocket wrote: In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.
For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.
You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation
Well I guess Dark Eldar are getting screwed too. Not in my games! In my games you get to place all 10 if they survive the explosion!
Loborocket wrote: In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.
For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.
You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation
Do you use the base for the 2D footprint or the model? What rule says what the foot print is? If it is what is touching the game board, then we are talking about really small footprints. I think all of this is just too vague and if we go by RAW it is impossible to have any passengers survive an explosion. "Where the vehicle used to be" is a 3D space that is impossible to use as a complete reference for the placement of survivors.
BTW...does anyone want to take a gander at writing a question for this problem so we can all submit it to someone at GW for a FAQ inclusion?
This is my method which is generous enough so as to not punish any army.
Spoiler:
One method is to place the models on the table and then place the vehicle over the group and then treat the vehicle as a Template and remove any models that are not hit by the Template.
Following the template rules so that any part of the model (and/or base) touched, count as hit?
Just for clarity. Sounds like an acceptable method, given that almost all transports are not to scale with what they carry (you cannot fit 10 marines in the back of a rhino).
grendel083 wrote: Following the template rules so that any part of the model (and/or base) touched, count as hit?
Just for clarity. Sounds like an acceptable method, given that almost all transports are not to scale with what they carry (you cannot fit 10 marines in the back of a rhino).
I remember seeing in the gallery that someone modelled Thousand Sons sitting in the back of a rhino. It held four, two on each side sitting down and facing each other. And it was a cramped four at that. Factor in two more for the driver's compartment and you can hold six.
Loborocket wrote: In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.
For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.
You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation
Do you use the base for the 2D footprint or the model? What rule says what the foot print is? If it is what is touching the game board, then we are talking about really small footprints. I think all of this is just too vague and if we go by RAW it is impossible to have any passengers survive an explosion. "Where the vehicle used to be" is a 3D space that is impossible to use as a complete reference for the placement of survivors.
BTW...does anyone want to take a gander at writing a question for this problem so we can all submit it to someone at GW for a FAQ inclusion?
This is my method which is generous enough so as to not punish any army.
Spoiler:
One method is to place the models on the table and then place the vehicle over the group and then treat the vehicle as a Template and remove any models that are not hit by the Template.
This still doesn't satisfy the people saying they have to be wholly within the template. And this is still coming up with something not in the rules to handle this situation. I like the method personally, but the whole thing needs a FAQ.
Lord Scythican wrote: This still doesn't satisfy the people saying they have to be wholly within the template. And this is still coming up with something not in the rules to handle this situation. I like the method personally, but the whole thing needs a FAQ.
Nothing will satisfy those people. They are making up rules that they think should apply.
col_impact wrote: Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.
No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.
"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).
On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.
One model on top of another model in a deployment zone will still both be in a deployment zone. Anyway its not something I would do, only something that I could do in the rules.
Incorrect, the rules are written assuming you are moving and deploying on the battlefield which is terrain.
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."(Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section).
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
You need to polish up on what is considered to be a Deployment Zone. I can put a model on top of another model and still be "12 inches away from the centerline"
And you need to polish up on the fact that vehicles are deployed in terrain.
On top of another model is not terrain and not a legal deployment.
Lord Scythican wrote: This still doesn't satisfy the people saying they have to be wholly within the template. And this is still coming up with something not in the rules to handle this situation. I like the method personally, but the whole thing needs a FAQ.
Nothing will satisfy those people. They are making up rules that they think should apply.
col_impact wrote: Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.
No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.
"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).
On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.
One model on top of another model in a deployment zone will still both be in a deployment zone. Anyway its not something I would do, only something that I could do in the rules.
Incorrect, the rules are written assuming you are moving and deploying on the battlefield which is terrain.
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."(Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section).
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).
You need to polish up on what is considered to be a Deployment Zone. I can put a model on top of another model and still be "12 inches away from the centerline"
And you need to polish up on the fact that vehicles are deployed in terrain.
On top of another model is not terrain and not a legal deployment.
None of the rules you quoted actually restrict me from placing a model on top of another model during deployment. A model on top of another model will still be in a deployment zone.
col_impact wrote: None of the rules you quoted actually restrict me from placing a model on top of another model during deployment. A model on top of another model will still be in a deployment zone.
In a permissive ruleset you have to find a rule stating you can deploy on top of another vehicle.
I have rules shown that you deploy in the terrain of the deployment zone.
Got anything stating you can deploy not in the terrain and instead deploy on top of another vehicle?
col_impact wrote: None of the rules you quoted actually restrict me from placing a model on top of another model during deployment. A model on top of another model will still be in a deployment zone.
In a permissive ruleset you have to find a rule stating you can deploy on top of another vehicle.
I have rules shown that you deploy in the terrain of the deployment zone.
Got anything stating you can deploy not in the terrain and instead deploy on top of another vehicle?
You have shown rules that you deploy in a deployment zone.
The simplest most obvious solution seems best. When you have 2 valid RaW interpretations and one is broken whilst the other lines up with the most likely RaI why not play by that?
Place the models so that at least part of them occupies some of the space the vehicle occupied. Then everything works fine and you've broken no rule.
Loborocket wrote: ... I would just not want to be the person forcing someone to remove models because of an overly strict interpretation of the rules.
If you're 'forcing' an opponent to do something based on a vaguely written rule, you're probably approaching the game with the wrong mindset to begin with.
The way I choose to play this is the way I have commonly seen it played for the last 3 editions. It's also, for whatever it's worth to people, the way the INATFAQ ruled it, and so the way various larger tournaments including Adepticon played it.
But outside of a tournament with a specific ruling on it, it's still just how I choose to play it, not RAW. So if I do wind up standing across the table from someone who thinks differently, I'm not going to 'force' them to play my way. That's not going to lead to an enjoyable game for either of us.
col_impact wrote: You have shown rules that you deploy in a deployment zone.
The battlefield = terrain...
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."
(Preparing for battle chapter).
"Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." (Deployment Zones section)
The areas of what? contextually they are talking about the battlefield.
You deploy in the deployment zone (Of the battlefield) which is terrain.
col_impact wrote: You have shown rules that you deploy in a deployment zone.
The battlefield = terrain...
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."
(Preparing for battle chapter).
"Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." (Deployment Zones section)
The areas of what? contextually they are talking about the battlefield.
You deploy in the deployment zone (Of the battlefield) which is terrain.
Ergo you deploy in terrain...
You are reading into it. The "areas where they can be set up" is referring to the Deployment Zones.
None of the rules you quoted actually restrict me from placing a model on top of another model during deployment. A model on top of another model in the Deployment Zone will still be in the Deployment Zone.
col_impact wrote: You have shown rules that you deploy in a deployment zone.
The battlefield = terrain...
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."
(Preparing for battle chapter).
"Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." (Deployment Zones section)
The areas of what? contextually they are talking about the battlefield.
You deploy in the deployment zone (Of the battlefield) which is terrain.
Ergo you deploy in terrain...
You are reading into it. The "areas where they can be set up" is referring to the Deployment Zones.
None of the rules you quoted actually restrict me from placing a model on top of another model during deployment. A model on top of another model in the Deployment Zone will still be in the Deployment Zone.
And the Deployment Zone is an area of the battlefield where models are deployed...
"Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided" (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section). This it talking about the battlefield, since models are set up in an area, and that area is a portion of the battlefield.
Also " If you are not using a published mission, we recommend you simply divide the table in half down its length, and deploy the armies in the opposite halves of the table." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section). you set up models on the table.
col_impact wrote: You have shown rules that you deploy in a deployment zone.
The battlefield = terrain...
"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."
"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."
(Preparing for battle chapter).
"Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." (Deployment Zones section)
The areas of what? contextually they are talking about the battlefield.
You deploy in the deployment zone (Of the battlefield) which is terrain.
Ergo you deploy in terrain...
You are reading into it. The "areas where they can be set up" is referring to the Deployment Zones.
None of the rules you quoted actually restrict me from placing a model on top of another model during deployment. A model on top of another model in the Deployment Zone will still be in the Deployment Zone.
And the Deployment Zone is an area of the battlefield where models are deployed...
"Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided" (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section). This it talking about the battlefield, since models are set up in an area, and that area is a portion of the battlefield.
Also " If you are not using a published mission, we recommend you simply divide the table in half down its length, and deploy the armies in the opposite halves of the table." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section). you set up models on the table.
A model on top of another model is not legal.
You are having trouble with basic reading here. You claim that area is referring to battlefield as terrain when the whole rule section does not even mention battlefield. As stated before, you are reading into it. And you are not permitted to read into the rules. And as stated before if I deploy a model on top of another model in my Deployment Zone I have successfully met the criteria for deploying in the Deployment Zone.
Spoiler:
Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you each player’s deployment zone. If you are not using a published mission, we recommend you simply divide the table in half down its length, and deploy the armies in the opposite halves of the table. Alternatively, you could divide the table in half across its width, or diagonally, or use Random Deployment Zones (below).
In addition, it is usual to say that units from the two sides must set up a certain distance away from each other. This is not strictly necessary, but it stops the armies from starting too close together, and allows for a certain amount of manoeuvring at the start of the battle before units can charge each other. The easiest way of achieving this is to say that no unit may set up within a certain distance of the centre line between the two sides’ deployment zones. We’ve found that 12" away from the centre line works best; this ensures that the armies will start at least 24" apart, which makes first turn charges hard to achieve while still giving you enough space on a typical table to deploy your army.
rigeld2 wrote: People (Orks) riding in a transport will be positioned differently than people (Orks) standing in a crater.
20 models ride inside fine. 20 models can't be combat ready in the same square footage fine. This isn't a ludicrous assumption, it's a basic fact.
Best leave real world analogies out as they do not work, particularly in this case.
So it's okay to say "it doesn't make sense to transport 20 and place less than 20!" But not okay to come up with a reason that does in fact make sense?
Cool. So you just don't want to hear arguments to the contrary then. Have fun.
Not at all. The deployment zone is a portion of the battlefield where you deploy your army.
You claim that area is referring to battlefield as terrain when the whole rule section does not even mention battlefield.
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided.
The area of what? The area of the battlefield where the armies can be set up...
"THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins."
"The Field of War
The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."
(Both quotes from the Preparing for Battle chapter).
Note "THE BATTLEFIELD" is the section that "The Field of War" and "Deployment Zones" fall under.
I understand that you are trying to cobble together some restriction. However, the only actual specification that the rules have is that I put the model in the Deployment Zone. Anyway, this is just a loophole in the rules. It's not like I am advocating anyone play according to this loophole.
col_impact wrote: I understand that you are trying to cobble together some restriction. However, the only actual specification that the rules have is that I put the model in the Deployment Zone. Anyway, this is just a loophole in the rules. It's not like I am advocating anyone play according to this loophole.
If you do not ignore the context you will understand the rules.
col_impact wrote: I understand that you are trying to cobble together some restriction. However, the only actual specification that the rules have is that I put the model in the Deployment Zone. Anyway, this is just a loophole in the rules. It's not like I am advocating anyone play according to this loophole.
If you do not ignore the context you will understand the rules.
As stated, the only actual specification that the rules have is that I put the model in the Deployment Zone.
rigeld2 wrote: People (Orks) riding in a transport will be positioned differently than people (Orks) standing in a crater.
20 models ride inside fine. 20 models can't be combat ready in the same square footage fine. This isn't a ludicrous assumption, it's a basic fact.
Best leave real world analogies out as they do not work, particularly in this case.
So it's okay to say "it doesn't make sense to transport 20 and place less than 20!" But not okay to come up with a reason that does in fact make sense?
Cool. So you just don't want to hear arguments to the contrary then. Have fun.
Yes, because 20 men riding take up far more room than 20 "combat ready". Your example is poor.
rigeld2 wrote: People (Orks) riding in a transport will be positioned differently than people (Orks) standing in a crater.
20 models ride inside fine. 20 models can't be combat ready in the same square footage fine. This isn't a ludicrous assumption, it's a basic fact.
Best leave real world analogies out as they do not work, particularly in this case.
So it's okay to say "it doesn't make sense to transport 20 and place less than 20!" But not okay to come up with a reason that does in fact make sense?
Cool. So you just don't want to hear arguments to the contrary then. Have fun.
Yes, because 20 men riding take up far more room than 20 "combat ready". Your example is poor.
RAW interpretation A: 3 out of 6 Meganobs auto-die when the Trukk explodes.
RAW interpretation B: 6 out of 6 Meganobs are placed where the Trukk explodes.
rigeld2 wrote: People (Orks) riding in a transport will be positioned differently than people (Orks) standing in a crater.
20 models ride inside fine. 20 models can't be combat ready in the same square footage fine. This isn't a ludicrous assumption, it's a basic fact.
Best leave real world analogies out as they do not work, particularly in this case.
So it's okay to say "it doesn't make sense to transport 20 and place less than 20!" But not okay to come up with a reason that does in fact make sense?
Cool. So you just don't want to hear arguments to the contrary then. Have fun.
Yes, because 20 men riding take up far more room than 20 "combat ready". Your example is poor.
Yes, they do. It takes far more room to stand with a rifle/gun at the ready, scanning the battlefield, moving around, etc. than it does to sit in a chair.
No one's even mentioned the twisted, burning wreckage of the transport that the model's were embarked upon just mere moments ago. Did it just evaporate in a green glow like in the classic 1953 film The War of the Worlds?
Ghaz wrote: No one's even mentioned the twisted, burning wreckage of the transport that the model's were embarked upon just mere moments ago. Did it just evaporate in a green glow like in the classic 1953 film The War of the Worlds?
Explodes is lethal enough. Do we really need mini blackholes in there too popping models out of existence?
Perhaps the twisted, burning wreckage is the reason that 20 models that fit in the vehicle can't fit where the vehicle was. Because there was no mini black hole to pop the wreckage out of the way.
rigeld2 wrote: Nonononono the only reason that 20 models can't disembark is jerks that want to actually play by the rules.
We are playing by the rules. There is no GW set procedure here. All of us are necessarily implementing an interpretation of RAW. However, my interpretation is better than yours since it doesn't foster an unfair gaming environment for Orks and Dark Eldar.
rigeld2 wrote: Nonononono the only reason that 20 models can't disembark is jerks that want to actually play by the rules.
We are playing by the rules. There is no GW set procedure here. All of us are necessarily implementing an interpretation of RAW. However, my interpretation is better than yours since it doesn't foster an unfair gaming environment for Orks and Dark Eldar.
"Better" is subjective.
And it's not "unfair". What makes you think this disadvantage isn't built into the cost of the Transport?
rigeld2 wrote: Nonononono the only reason that 20 models can't disembark is jerks that want to actually play by the rules.
We are playing by the rules. There is no GW set procedure here. All of us are necessarily implementing an interpretation of RAW. However, my interpretation is better than yours since it doesn't foster an unfair gaming environment for Orks and Dark Eldar.
"Better" is subjective.
And it's not "unfair". What makes you think this disadvantage isn't built into the cost of the Transport?
GW for better or worse left it as an open issue and open for interpretation. I am not going to choose to play it out in the meanest way possible. I am going to choose to play it out in the most equitable way possible. You can make your own choice.
Not in my games! In my games you get to place all 10 if they survive the explosion!
