Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How am i making up rules?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Models = Area of the base = 0.785 inches square.

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

Where's this quote from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And theres no permission for that.

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

Fixed.

See: Ruler images + English.

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

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

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

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

As written, however. . . .

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

What does the Rulebook say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partially in satisfies the rules.

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

Doomthumbs wrote:
What does the Rulebook say?

About washcloths? Nothing...

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

ChrisCP wrote:

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

Where's this quote from?

From here:

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

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

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

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

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

Partially in satisfies the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to read!

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

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

Partially in satisfies the rules.

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

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

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

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

Ironic?

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

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

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


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

heh

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

/boggle

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

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

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

You really are missing the irony in this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I drive a Vulva.

Doomthumbs wrote:

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

Partially in satisfies the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

ChrisCP wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote:
What does the Rulebook say?

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

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

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

Because it is not forbidden is not right.

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

We're not measuring distances here. Ever.