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.

Doomthumbs wrote:I drive a Vulva.

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

Cheers.

DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

Because it is not forbidden is not right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?Huh?

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

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

Then you are good.

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

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

Then you are good.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

kirsanth wrote:

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

Then you are good.

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

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

ChrisCP wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Still.

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

solkan has the level head this time however.

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

ChrisCP wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

solkan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I laughed @ fancy calculation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing made up if you understand what area means.

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

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

We put the model where vehicle used to be.

or

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

Since they are interchangeable.

area = 0.785 inches square etc...

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

Heeheehee
...
=_=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doomthumbs wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sorry if that went too fast for you.

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

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

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

Wrong

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

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

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

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

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