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.

As has been pointed out many, many times in this forum, the rules is permissive. You need a rule that says the base is used for swimmers that will trump the vehicle/simmer rules that say you ignore the base. There is no such rule, but there are rules that demand ignoring the base.

Given that, and the fact that it talks about swimmers in terrain without a subsequent rule allowing the base to mean anything, shows that the hull being above terrain is the determining factor for it being in it, not the base.

You are not the lone voice of reason in the world. If this many people can keep providing solid evidence that you are wrong, you probably are.

Our side isn't changing rules at all, but I am curious as to these implications we are causing.

-cgmckenzie

Ps- again sent from phone. My phone refuses to let me write 'S K I M M E R'

ElCheezus wrote: Plus, instead of moving the conversation forward at all, I'm forced to repeat arguments from pages and pages ago.

Uh, no, actually, you're not. There's no prize for 'winning' a rules discussion here. If someone doesn't agree with your point, just repeating it isn't going to change their mind... you need to either find a different way of making the point, or accept that sometimes people will disagree with you regardless of how awesome you think your argument is.

If you're finding yourself getting irritated with the fact that someone disagrees with you, then yes, leaving the thread alone for a while is definitely the best option.

ElCheezus wrote: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.

Facts for you:
1) An n-dimensional object can never be within an object with less dimensions. A line can not be within a point, a square not within a line and a cube not within a square.
2) All models are three dimensional. This is even more well-defined for vehicles.
3) As per RAW models can be within area terrain.
=> area terrain must be at least three dimensional

There, hard proof for three dimensional area terrain.

Yes proof of 3d area terrain, but the boundaries of the terrain are still the boundaries of the terrain, and anything outside of that, above or too the side, are not affected because they are not in the area terrain, they are outside of it.

That (false) interpretation of boundaries as lines would make terrain two dimensional, don't you think? Which would in return make it impossible for any model to ever be inside it. Which is not what the rules say.

Back to an earlier example, a plane crossing the border of a country is still entering that country.

I really thought about posting the aeroplane example from earlier but couldn't fit it in. Thanks for giving is the actual physics reasons why it doesn't work. I fins that amusing.

I had some point but forgot it, so have the physics equation touched on above.

O= object. n=number if dimensions O occupies

V(On)=/= A(On-1) should read 'volume of object in n-dimensions cannot fit within area of object with n-1 dimensions'.

-cgmckenzie

Ps- aurocorrect and alcohol don't mix well. Sorry for whatever above post insinuates.

insaniak wrote:

ElCheezus wrote: Plus, instead of moving the conversation forward at all, I'm forced to repeat arguments from pages and pages ago.

Uh, no, actually, you're not. There's no prize for 'winning' a rules discussion here. If someone doesn't agree with your point, just repeating it isn't going to change their mind... you need to either find a different way of making the point, or accept that sometimes people will disagree with you regardless of how awesome you think your argument is.

If you're finding yourself getting irritated with the fact that someone disagrees with you, then yes, leaving the thread alone for a while is definitely the best option.

You're right, it's not about winning. I'd be fine if I were understood, but others disagreed with my conclusion. But the fact that I'm repeatedly asked to defend the same point makes it seem like I'm not being understood. I never had to repeat myself this much even when tutoring math to English majors.(har har, that's supposed to lighten the mood) My problem isn't disagreement, my problem is the sense of talking to a wall that's not even listening. If that's the case, it's not even "agree to disagree," which I can do, it's just a waste of breath. But, then again, maybe I'm just explaining myself poorly.

Jidmah wrote:

ElCheezus wrote: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.

Facts for you:
1) An n-dimensional object can never be within an object with less dimensions. A line can not be within a point, a square not within a line and a cube not within a square.
2) All models are three dimensional. This is even more well-defined for vehicles.
3) As per RAW models can be within area terrain.
=> area terrain must be at least three dimensional

There, hard proof for three dimensional area terrain.

One of your assumptions is that the rulebook uses two three-dimensional concepts (models and area terrain) occupying the same space to be how it defines "in terrain." Since there is no actual definition of how it determines "in terrain," let's ignore that assumption for a minute. Bear with me.

If Area Terrain has volume, why is it called Area Terrain? Area is a property of two-dimensional objects. If it has volume, why isn't that mentioned? It's quite a jump to go from Area to Volume without the book saying so or at least explaining why. Other than your current assumption of how to determine "in terrain," there is nothing in the BRB that points to three-dimensional Area Terrain. Quite the opposite, it's very name implies two-dimensionality.

If Area Terrain is two dimensional (which it's name and definitions lead me to believe), we need a way of determining "in terrain." The definition of two three-dimensional objects occupying the same space doesn't work, because Area Terrain isn't three-dimensional.

pg 22, while not about vehicles, has a reference to being "in terrain." It mentions the base of the model as being what determines whether it's in or not.

So if we don't use your definition of "in terrain," do you see how Area Terrain must be two-dimensional? Remember, the book doesn't provide any definition or even a good indication of "in terrain," so my definition is as valid as yours, until we find contradiction. (we'll save that for later)

I'm sure that you are both rational dudes ... so explain your points and and maybe you can come to a conclusion. If not then...

flip a coin.

And REMEMBER ... The rules stated in the BRB are NOT set in stone. They are just GUIDELINES. As is stated in the BRB itself.

Just have fun!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record though...

I would ALWAYS say that any piece of the vehicle which can be clased as a vital component (excluding extra fuel/tires/ammo ect), and is in range of the weapon in question, can be fired upon.

ElCheezus wrote:One of your assumptions is that the rulebook uses two three-dimensional concepts (models and area terrain) occupying the same space to be how it defines "in terrain." Since there is no actual definition of how it determines "in terrain," let's ignore that assumption for a minute. Bear with me.

If Area Terrain has volume, why is it called Area Terrain? Area is a property of two-dimensional objects. If it has volume, why isn't that mentioned? It's quite a jump to go from Area to Volume without the book saying so or at least explaining why. Other than your current assumption of how to determine "in terrain," there is nothing in the BRB that points to three-dimensional Area Terrain. Quite the opposite, it's very name implies two-dimensionality.

Names don't define anything. A daemon hunter isn't a daemon either.
Everything in the ruins rules points towards three dimensional terrain and models. Otherwise ruins would not work on above ground level, which are, in fact, area terrain. Just looking at the pictures should be enough proof for three-dimensionality.

If Area Terrain is two dimensional (which it's name and definitions lead me to believe), we need a way of determining "in terrain." The definition of two three-dimensional objects occupying the same space doesn't work, because Area Terrain isn't three-dimensional.

pg 22, while not about vehicles, has a reference to being "in terrain." It mentions the base of the model as being what determines whether it's in or not.

This might be sufficient for infantry models, but Vehicles and Skimmers do not have a base for the purpose of moving. You referenced rule fails to solve the problem right there, as you ignore the difference between infantry and skimmer bases. A skimmer occupies the space of it's hull, while any infantry model occupies the area of it's base.

So if we don't use your definition of "in terrain," do you see how Area Terrain must be two-dimensional? Remember, the book doesn't provide any definition or even a good indication of "in terrain," so my definition is as valid as yours, until we find contradiction. (we'll save that for later)

The book doesn't. Geometry does. The BRB doesn't define stuff like "straight line" either. You also never disproved that boundaries are two-dimensional. I've already found contradictions in your rules, you just chose to ignore it. You may not use the skimmer base for anything but assault and disembarking or capturing objects for the large ones.

Sorry I am coming into this question late (and I didn't see this above), but I have a question. Why do most people believe wings are part of the hull? In my experiences, hulls are the bodies containing the crew and passengers.

My source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hull

"hull2    /hʌl/ Show Spelled
[huhl] Show IPA

–noun
1. the hollow, lowermost portion of a ship, floating partially submerged and supporting the remainder of the ship.
2. Aeronautics .
a. the boatlike fuselage of a flying boat on which the plane lands or takes off.
b. the cigar-shaped arrangement of girders enclosing the gasbag of a rigid dirigible. "

See definition 2 above. I do play that people can shoot at the wings as it makes sense that I need my wings to fly my craft. What seems unreasonable: trying to deploy from the wings.

I was just wondering.

That was answered somewhere around pg 2/3. I think we came to the conclusion that anything that isn't decorative(banners, antennae, guns, etc) is hull, so the wings are hull.

-cgmckenzie

Also note the tenets of YMDC, which prohibit dictionary definitions.

THe rulebook definess the hull by exception, essentially as anything that ISNT decorative or a weapon.

cgmckenzie wrote:That was answered somewhere around pg 2/3. I think we came to the conclusion that anything that isn't decorative(banners, antennae, guns, etc) is hull, so the wings are hull.

-cgmckenzie

My question wasn't what, but more why.

Basically because the BRB says so. It specifically excludes parts which are not hull, so everything else must be hull.

Jidmah wrote:Basically because the BRB says so. It specifically excludes parts which are not hull, so everything else must be hull.

It aactually makes reference to wings being ignored earlier on in the rulebook for line of sight purposes. It isnt mentioned in vehicles because honestly when the rulebook was written how many vehicles had wings?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also note the tenets of YMDC, which prohibit dictionary definitions.

THe rulebook definess the hull by exception, essentially as anything that ISNT decorative or a weapon.

Wow, had to read the tenets. Fine, let's throw out dictionary definitions. It can logical fallacy to assume something that isn't one thing IS, by default, something else. I don't want to rehash your agruements above, but It is difficult for me to continue my arguement, because I know what a hull is through my experiences as an engineer.

An exception in YMTC would be be if the rulebook defined a hull. Do you have a page number where I can review the "definition by exception" later at home (at work right now)?

Tomb King wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Basically because the BRB says so. It specifically excludes parts which are not hull, so everything else must be hull.

It aactually makes reference to wings being ignored earlier on in the rulebook for line of sight purposes. It isnt mentioned in vehicles because honestly when the rulebook was written how many vehicles had wings?

You might want to check that rule, rather than pulling it completely out of context. Wings are not part of the body when tracing LoS to infantry models (BRB pg. 16). If you want to stubborn-RAW that, wings would not count as part of the vehicle's body, which is irrelevant. You shoot the vehicle's hull, not its body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also note the tenets of YMDC, which prohibit dictionary definitions.

THe rulebook definess the hull by exception, essentially as anything that ISNT decorative or a weapon.

Wow, had to read the tenets. Fine, let's throw out dictionary definitions. It can logical fallacy to assume something that isn't one thing IS, by default, something else. I don't want to rehash your agruements above, but It is difficult for me to continue my arguement, because I know what a hull is through my experiences as an engineer.

An exception in YMTC would be be if the rulebook defined a hull. Do you have a page number where I can review the "definition by exception" later at home (at work right now)?

"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull(ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."(BRB pg. 56)

There you go.

The LOS rules against wings was for models of infantry and the like. The reasoning, as explained in the BGB, is that models shouldn't be penalized for having FABULOUS!!! wings/banners/guns. But for vehicles, it said that anything ornamental doesn't count for LOS, like antennae/flags/guns for some reason/banners hanging from titans. The how it is played most of the time, and is correct, is that anything that is needed for the vehicle to function counts as 'hull'. A general rule of thumb is 'if the vehicle cannot work at 100% capacity without this, I can shoot it'.

-cgmckenzie