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.

Tomb King wrote: To all of the people playing this correctly just ignore the few who are different. Every major tournament in the U.S. has ruled that it is only in DT when the base is, so unless your playing where they ruled it differently than no need to argue against such a stubborn person.

What on earth are you talking about? The only tournament in the US which has made up new rules regarding the Valk/Vend and SR is the Throne of Skulls next weekend in Vegas. I'm playing in it and have discussed those rules with the organizers.

There are scores of other large events which have not. If you can cite any examples of others, please feel free to provide links to the pages in question which show said rulings. Throne of Skulls is making an unusual and unprecedented change.

Tomb King wrote:Re-read your post before posting. To all of the people playing this correctly just ignore the few who are different. Every major tournament in the U.S. has ruled that it is only in DT when the base is, so unless your playing where they ruled it differently than no need to argue against such a stubborn person.

No, they havent.

In fact, only the Vegas ToS has

If you contend differently, please do somethjing unique for you - back your assertions up. Please provide links to online rulings which show this to be the case at EVERY major tournament.

Or, you know, actual rules? This side has kept slinging BRB quotes, you return fire from Merriam Webster.

Look at the hammerhead model for Tau Empire. Very little of the skimmer is actually above the base. Most of it hangs far over the little plastic circle. Does it only take terrain checks when the base is in terrain? No, because that is silly. Most every Tau player understands that the hull of their hovertarget is what counts, not the arbitrary circle holding it up.

Address that example. I have posted it multiple times and you fail to counter it.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Or, you know, actual rules? This side has kept slinging BRB quotes, you return fire from Merriam Webster.

This is absolutely wrong. I have quoted multiple sections that build my case for my interpretation. The problem is that you disagree with one. If you're confusing your disagreement and think it means I haven't quoted anything, I'm not sure there's a point in continuing. You'll just keep ignoring my arguments because they disagree with you.

As for your side, you have yet to provide any explanation for your definition of Area Terrain other than the fact that your interpretation doesn't work without adding rules. Your idea of ignoring the base leaves skimmers with no way to interact with area terrain as defined by the BRB. There's no getting around that at all, in any way, no matter how much you try. The only way you have a case is if you make up rules.

Before coming to my conclusion, I read all of your arguments and looked everything up in the rulebook, trying to understand your point of view. Have you done the same and actually tried to understand where I'm coming from? Or have you just stonewalled any idea that isn't yours? It certainly feels that way. It's not like I'm an enemy that will stand gloating over your corpse if you come to agree with me. I'm trying to help people understand why I see things this way. It's okay to consider if the other person might be right, you know.

Look at the hammerhead model for Tau Empire. Very little of the skimmer is actually above the base. Most of it hangs far over the little plastic circle. Does it only take terrain checks when the base is in terrain? No, because that is silly. Most every Tau player understands that the hull of their hovertarget is what counts, not the arbitrary circle holding it up.

Address that example. I have posted it multiple times and you fail to counter it.

Yes, it only takes terrain checks when the little circle is in area terrain or if it's hull touches it. I'm comfortable with this. Calling it silly has no actual rules weight; that starts heading back into the "real world" rationale, which we all know doesn't apply. I haven't addressed it because I have no problem with it.

As for definitions, well, I was asked for one point blank. If you want better definitions, look them up yourself. I personally don't need a dictionary to reference to know what the word "effectively" means.

If you don't get that:

a) "effectively" refers to the effect of something
b) if we're talking about the effects of a rule, then we aren't talking about an actual rule, only it's results

then I can't help you. I've tried, but I'm not a teacher or a tutor in English.

My view depends on not reading too far into a rule. I confine it to the section in which it is presented: "Measuring Distances"
Your view depends on rules that flat out don't exist.

I'm honestly surprised that you haven't played against Eldar or Tau players at any point over the last ten+ years and gotten accustomed to how it works. Kind of strange.

Argument from tradition is a fallacy. Just because it's been done one way in the past doesn't mean it's right or wrong. You need to argue from rules and logic.

I've already done that. I'm acknowledging the fact that you are arguing sincerely from your interpretation of the rules.

I'm just also expressing my surprise that the concept of a vehicle's hull being over area terrain is what determines whether a check is taken is new to you. I recognize that my surprise holds no weight in what remains of the debate.

Oh, it isn't new to me. One of my most common opponents (my brother-in-law who got me into the game) plays Tau, and I think we usually played it the way you describe. But after following this thread for a bit and investigating the all the rules and references I could find, I have come to my new conclusion.

Pg 13 says moving into the area defined by the borders makes the models take the terrain test, not models touching the terrain or on the terrain.

Pg 14 also says multiple times something to the point of 'inside/in/into terrain'. If the rule was only the items physically touching the ground, it would be 'on/touching/on top of terrain'.

Movement for skimmers on pg 71 states that is a skimmer starts or ends in difficult/dangerous terrain it takes a test. Again, it doesn't say 'on', it says 'in'.

It goes on to say a skimmer can end above impassable terrain if you can physically place it there, so flat area terrain deemed impassable that the skimmer overhangs would make it take a test simply for being over it even if the base was still in clear terrain.

-cgmckenzie

ElCheezus wrote:
a) "effectively" refers to the effect of something
b) if we're talking about the effects of a rule, then we aren't talking about an actual rule, only it's results

then I can't help you. I've tried, but I'm not a teacher or a tutor in English.

My view depends on not reading too far into a rule. I confine it to the section in which it is presented: "Measuring Distances"
Your view depends on rules that flat out don't exist.

This isn't the definition of effectively or really even something close to it.

Seeing as we like qouting the dictionary...

Mariam-Webster wrote:
Definition of EFFECTIVELY
1
: in effect : virtually <by withholding further funds they effectively killed the project>
2
: in an effective manner <dealt with the problem effectively>
See effectively defined for English-language learners »

So its a good thing you aren't an English tutor or teacher...we already have enough who do it poorly already.

As cgmkenzie said, terrain is defined purely by its edges. Terrain is an abstraction and goes infinitely upwards, as strange as that may sound.

cgmckenzie wrote:Pg 13 says moving into the area defined by the borders makes the models take the terrain test, not models touching the terrain or on the terrain.

Pg 14 also says multiple times something to the point of 'inside/in/into terrain'. If the rule was only the items physically touching the ground, it would be 'on/touching/on top of terrain'.

Movement for skimmers on pg 71 states that is a skimmer starts or ends in difficult/dangerous terrain it takes a test. Again, it doesn't say 'on', it says 'in'.

It goes on to say a skimmer can end above impassable terrain if you can physically place it there, so flat area terrain deemed impassable that the skimmer overhangs would make it take a test simply for being over it even if the base was still in clear terrain.

-cgmckenzie

So "on" vs. "in"? I mean, if you want to phase the matter of your models to make them able to actually be "in" buildings and terrain, instead of just "on top of" or "between the walls", that's hardcore man. I'm not sure I could pull it off.

There's no clear-cut definition of how to be in terrain that I've found. It certainly would help.

As for skimmers over impassable terrain, it also says you have to actually place the model on top of it, so hanging over it wouldn't count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naravus: I'm not sure what you're getting after. That definition seems to support my arguments, yet you talk like it defeats them.

Definition 1: virtually.

How does virtually compare to actually? Distinctively different, I think.

Virtually ignoring the base is distinctively different from actually ignoring the base.

No, the requirement says that you must be able to place it on top, not that you must place it on top. The difference is small but matters.

"A skimmer can even end it's move over impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must take a dangerous terrain test."

If the hull of my vendetta is over the impassable terrain, it takes the test. There is nothing compulsory about actually placing the base on the terrain, it just has to be able to be put there if you want to.

Since the BRB doesn't define touching the terrain as a requirement for being 'in' it, it simply isn't. It states that the terrain is defined by its borders. The airspace above the area is in it just as a plane flying over a country is in that country.

The base for skimmers is there to keep it off the table in a skimming/flying position. It can be used as a proxy for assaulting, other than that it is vestigial.

-cgmckenzie

'Juan effectively ignored the base'-the base was, for all purposes, ignored by Juan. It has the same meaning as 'Juan virtually ignored the base' or 'Juan actually ignored the base'. Effectively is pointing out how well he ignored the base. The adverb to "ignored's" verb.

You are correct, virtually is different in meaning than actually. However, my quote did defeat your arguement as you were using root words to help define a word improperly.

Similar to using the word assume to talk about donkeys 8/

However, you do actually ignore a skimmers base for all purposes other than assault or for disembarkation for things using an oval base. Other than that, the base serves no purpose. Virtually making them meaningless for purposes of movement.

Your argument allows for models to move onto the board edge with an overhang, which is, explicitly, against the rules of this little toy soldier make believe war we all take part in.

So wait, if there's impassable terrain that you can't actually place it on top of, it doesn't take the test if it's wing is hanging over? But if it's flat enough that you could put it there, it takes a test? That seems unfortunately inconsistent.

Including the "airspace" above the area terrain has no rules basis, no matter how many times you say it.

At absolute best, adding the airspace to the BRB's definition has the same amount of validity as using the base to determine what's in terrain. Of course, my interpretation has the benefit of not running into any weird situations, since the base and ground contact have precedent and are so commonly used throughout the entire book.

Naravus wrote:You are correct, virtually is different in meaning than actually. However, my quote did defeat your arguement as you were using root words to help define a word improperly.

Similar to using the word assume to talk about donkeys 8/

You're right, the root of the word doesn't always indicate its meaning. In this case, however, it still seems that the meaning you provide still supports my point. Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at.

However, you do actually ignore a skimmers base for all purposes other than assault or for disembarkation for things using an oval base. Other than that, the base serves no purpose. Virtually making them meaningless for purposes of movement.

Your argument allows for models to move onto the board edge with an overhang, which is, explicitly, against the rules of this little toy soldier make believe war we all take part in.

All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world! (current FAQ v 1.2) My interpretation is specifically overridden by other rules when it comes to board edge. I'm not arguing against a FAQ, that's for sure.

But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

ElCheezus wrote:Including the "airspace" above the area terrain has no rules basis, no matter how many times you say it.

So how can any model ever be forced to take a terrain test, if it occupies nothing but the actual model? It is impossible to put any model IN terrain unless you melt the terrain pieces and push your model in. Area terrain must have an airspace above it to work at all. If you disagree, please quote rules why any vehicle ever has to take a terrain test in area terrain.

As above.

You are areguing from an inconsistent position.

Measure to the hull, find the hull is "in" terrain and test. Works for ALL vehicles with absolutely no exceptions required.

If there is impassable terrain you can't place the model on, you are not allowed to have it hang over. It is impassable. If you can place the model on it, you can have overhang per the rules.

That overhang indicates airspace, comes from the BRB, and says nothing about contact or the base.

Vehicles use the hull of everything other models use bases for, so being over terrain with the hull of a skimmer counts as being in terrain.

-cgmckenzie

Mannahnin wrote:But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

Yes, the treatment of the table edge differs from the treatment of area terrain because they're different. It has been declared that nothing even exists outside the table edge, which is pretty strict. More importantly, we've been told how it works, unlike area terrain. So yeah, inconsistent, but with a reason.

Jidmah wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Including the "airspace" above the area terrain has no rules basis, no matter how many times you say it.

So how can any model ever be forced to take a terrain test, if it occupies nothing but the actual model? It is impossible to put any model IN terrain unless you melt the terrain pieces and push your model in. Area terrain must have an airspace above it to work at all. If you disagree, please quote rules why any vehicle ever has to take a terrain test in area terrain.

The fact that your interpretation must include something that isn't in the rulebook should be a sign. Wait, this sounds familiar, I think I've said it before. I've already given the rules references and I've never said it occupies nothing but the actual model. You might want to reread the thread.

You're effectively ignoring the point everybody else is making about the base being effectively ignored. Our point is still there, but you are treating as if it weren't. Same way the base operates on a skimmer.

Why are skimmers treated any differently that other vehicles in terrain? If the hull of a LRBT is in the area terrain it takes a check. Where does it say that a skimmer ignores that and only measures to the base?

Everything that mentions vehicles/skimmers, and bases says that you ignore them or do not use them. Show a rule that says otherwise.

-cgmckenzie

No, you didn't. I actually checked if I missed something in your posts.

You quoted a rule for cover, which never ever applies to vehicles, and extrapolated a ruling from that, which would force you to break the rule which tells you to ignore skimmer bases. Then you argued that "effectively" means something it doesn't.

Bottom line, your interpreted rule never forces a vehicle without a base to take a terrain test. Unless, of course, you use regular rules for non-skimmers and invented ones for skimmers.

You also ignored any reference to borders actually being vertical planes, rather than lines on the ground as you define them. Crossing such a plane results in entering the terrain, no matter the height.

cgmckenzie: I disagree, non-area terrain does not have borders defining it, so you can not assume it takes up more space than the model actually does. Placing a skimmer on top of impassible terrain is an exception to this, and handles the situation without flaw.(actually refering to your previous post, you posted while I was typing)

Jidmah wrote:You quoted a rule for cover, which never ever applies to vehicles, and extrapolated a ruling from that, which would force you to break the rule which tells you to ignore skimmer bases. Then you argued that "effectively" means something it doesn't.

This is the closest we get to any definition of what it means to be in terrain, which is an important element of this discussion. If you have a better definition, feel free to reference it.

How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

ElCheezus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

Yes, the treatment of the table edge differs from the treatment of area terrain because they're different. It has been declared that nothing even exists outside the table edge, which is pretty strict. More importantly, we've been told how it works, unlike area terrain. So yeah, inconsistent, but with a reason.

It's still a contradiction. We know that a skimmer is NOT entirely on the table if just its base is on, but the body is hanging off. So the body is what determines its position.

How and why would we think this works differently in regards to area terrain?

No problem, amigo. I was referring to the method of 'poor man's terrain' where you put a piece of cardboard down that is labelled 'area terrain' or 'impassable payless shoe store'. But if you actually have physical terrain, it loses its ability to do that.

And yes, my army box has an 'impassable payless shoe store' in it.

-cgmckenzie

Ps sent from phone, so please excuse spelling/formatting errors

Might be OT, but most of my impassible terrain comes from the model railway section off ebay. A rock is a rock, no matter the scale, and that stuff almost never has any bidders

Jidmah wrote:How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

There's no rules support for the vertical dimensions of area terrain. That's a quality that you're assuming exists becaue that's the only way your interpretation works. I've said this far to many times already, without any good, rules-supported reason for why it would have a vertical dimension.

Mannahnin wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

Yes, the treatment of the table edge differs from the treatment of area terrain because they're different. It has been declared that nothing even exists outside the table edge, which is pretty strict. More importantly, we've been told how it works, unlike area terrain. So yeah, inconsistent, but with a reason.

It's still a contradiction. We know that a skimmer is NOT entirely on the table if just its base is on, but the body is hanging off. So the body is what determines its position.

How and why would we think this works differently in regards to area terrain?

In this case, we've been provided reason for a vertical dimension, which makes the difference. The space outside of the playing area isn't even empty, it's considered nonexistent.

In every instance in the BGB(apparently the 40k BRB) that bases are mentioned as belonging to vehicles, the rules say to ignore or otherwise disregard the base except in assaults. Every single time. There is no evidence to support your interpretation of the rules that the base is used to determine terrain status.

Because the BGB always says ignore bases AND talks about swimmers in terrain, all the evidence supports the idea of the hull being above counts as it being in terrain. Provide a rule that contradicts that and you migrant have a case but as it stands now, you reply have no evidence to support your side.

-cgmckenzie

Again, sent from phone so forgive any typos please. I think I got most of them but autocorrect makes fools of us all

ElCheezus wrote:

Jidmah wrote:How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

There's no rules support for the vertical dimensions of area terrain. That's a quality that you're assuming exists becaue that's the only way your interpretation works. I've said this far to many times already, without any good, rules-supported reason for why it would have a vertical dimension.

Any good rules supported reason? How about the picture on pg. 83? This should establish that we are, in fact, playing a three dimensional game. Thus if you ever want to create a area(volume), you have to use two dimensional boundaries to define it, otherwise it would be a plane in which no model could ever be. The rules tell us the area of the the terrain is defined by the edges of the base. So either you take the edges as one-dimensional and would never have any area terrain at all, or they are two-dimensional and actually create a volume, just like rules describe. If the borders do not create a closed volume, it extends indefinitely. Slightly advanced geometry, really.

Refusing to see boundaries as two-dimensional breaks the game, and is simply being stubborn.

cgmckenzie wrote:In every instance in the BGB(apparently the 40k BRB) that bases are mentioned as belonging to vehicles, the rules say to ignore or otherwise disregard the base except in assaults. Every single time. There is no evidence to support your interpretation of the rules that the base is used to determine terrain status.

Because the BGB always says ignore bases AND talks about swimmers in terrain, all the evidence supports the idea of the hull being above counts as it being in terrain. Provide a rule that contradicts that and you migrant have a case but as it stands now, you reply have no evidence to support your side.l

This has been covered multiple times already.

Jidmah wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Jidmah wrote:How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

There's no rules support for the vertical dimensions of area terrain. That's a quality that you're assuming exists becaue that's the only way your interpretation works. I've said this far to many times already, without any good, rules-supported reason for why it would have a vertical dimension.

Any good rules supported reason? How about the picture on pg. 83? This should establish that we are, in fact, playing a three dimensional game. Thus if you ever want to create a area(volume), you have to use two dimensional boundaries to define it, otherwise it would be a plane in which no model could ever be. The rules tell us the area of the the terrain is defined by the edges of the base. So either you take the edges as one-dimensional and would never have any area terrain at all, or they are two-dimensional and actually create a volume, just like rules describe. If the borders do not create a closed volume, it extends indefinitely. Slightly advanced geometry, really.

Refusing to see boundaries as two-dimensional breaks the game, and is simply being stubborn.

Yes, we're playing a three-dimensional game, which exactly why area terrain should have some description of it's third dimension. Instead, there is none. YOU KEEP ADDING A THIRD DIMENSION TO MAKE YOUR INTERPRETATION WORK, BUT THERE IS NO RULES SUPPORT FOR IT. Until you realize that the height of area terrain is only in your mind, there will be no more progress made here. It's born out of necessity from the weakness of your interpretation, nothing more.

This, too, I've said already. Repeatedly.

Honestly, I'm just bored with this whole discussion. You believe too blindly in three dimensional area terrain without reason, you take the rules about measuring to the hull of a skimmer out of context, and you don't consider the far reaching implications of the changes you've made to the rules. You perceive a weakness of your argument (lack of interaction with area terrain if you ignore the base) to be evidence that area terrain magically works the way you think it does. Plus, instead of moving the conversation forward at all, I'm forced to repeat arguments from pages and pages ago.

If I see any new arguments worth responding to, I'll be back. Until then, assume that I've already answered whatever "new" argument you have.