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: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

There is actually a nice pub with good food and good beer near my FLGS. I am more of a Scotch drinker, but let me know if you are ever around!

Because your middle paragraph is an assumption; you are adding non-existant restrictions to the requirements. In essence you are adding "entirely" to the statement.

The requirements ONLY care about you placing the model within the area defined by the dead vehicle. If you can satisfy that requirement you have satisfied the only requirement actually written down.

Placing the model entirely within, and partially within, BOTH satisfy the requirement.

Where DT and DR are failing is they are attempting to fabricate this requirement, when none is present - DR through the "novel" "area must be the whole area", and DT by simply repeating that we have to prove "partially" is allowable. Neither are valid arguments.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oh wait, you dont have one.

nosferatu1001 wrote: *gasp*

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry if that went too fast for you.

Is all I keep hearing from you. Dissappointingly short insults.
Give me a quote that says the model can be halfway in anything else.
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.

Doomthumbs wrote:
This is YOUR fabrication, and I checked the other thread and you made stuff up there, too.

nosferatu1001's paraprased text on the other thread wrote: Models can be off the table if they start partially off the table from reserve, that way they aren't moving off the table! Look at the ruler, man!

Off the table is like Vegas. What goes there, stays there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, willing to retract your unsubstantiated, false statements yet? Put up or shut up.

imcdonnell wrote: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 ?

+1

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

I apparently invented math so i am making up the formula for figuring out the area of the base, and what area means. /sarcasm

It is only a lie if you do not know what area means. I have on multiple posts tried to explain area, which should not need further explanation.

The formula for finding the area of the 1" base is Pi Times the Radius Squared. That will give you the surface area of the base.
Area = Surface area. and that is what has to be where the vehicle used to be, no less.

If you know what area means then you understand the rules for this situation.

Question 1. What is the area of a 1" base?

Question 2. where does this area have to be?

Question 3. can can this area be anywhere else?

Answer these 3 questions and all is clear.

Please stop saying that i am making up rules when i am clearly not making anything up. Find out what area includes and lets be done.

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

Thats brilliant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, its all I can do now to just blare "Imagine" at top volume, thinking imcdonnel is the best thing to come out of Brittain since the Beatles. That line made my whole morning.
Imagine your life on our side, nos. We've got friendship, beer [Edit, Scotch andbeer], and groovy tunes.

And the Wooooooooooorld shall be as one.

DT - sigh. Have you proven your restriction exists? No? Then the default, that only the written restriction of "within" exists, is true.

You are stunningly oblivious to the fact that YOU are the one making an unfounded and extraordinary claim: you are claiming a restriction on "within" exists but have yet to provide proof of such a restriction.

You have to provide proof of your side, as our proof already exists by the ABSENCE of a restriction. Sorry that you dont seem to understand this rather obvious distinction.

You concede the argument as you have not provided proof of a restriction on "within".

As to your made up quote? Not exactly helping you. That isnt what I wrote. Provide an actual quote to back up your assertion, just for once? Also a link so I can find it to check as, quite frankly, I have no reason to trust you.

DR - your continued failure to prove that the *entire* area has to be within the vehicles footprint is the lie. You keep making the logical fallacy that "area" has to be "the whole area"

In essence you are dressing up the lack of the restriction "entirely" by pretending that "area" has an inherent restriction. It doesnt. Hence you are lying by saying it exists.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DT - sigh. Have you proven your restriction exists? No? Then the default, that only the written restriction of "within" exists, is true.

You concede the argument as you have not provided proof of a restriction on "within".

As to your made up quote? Not exactly helping you. That isnt what I wrote. Provide an actual quote to back up your assertion, just for once? Also a link so I can find it to check as, quite frankly, I have no reason to trust you.

Where does it say "Within" in that sentence on page 67? What are you even talking about anymore?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh. I know it doesn't say replacing the models for the vehicle, but it is intended every bit as much as our wanting to put a restriction on partially based on where it was is still technically legal.
What about demons? When I replace the sacrificial model for the demon, do I get to put it so that just a flaming pinky demon toe crosses the line on where the burnt out husk of the other dude was? Not happening, man. Not ever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - your continued failure to prove that the *entire* area has to be within the vehicles footprint is the lie. You keep making the logical fallacy that "area" has to be "the whole area"

In essence you are dressing up the lack of the restriction "entirely" by pretending that "area" has an inherent restriction. It doesnt. Hence you are lying by saying it exists.

I have proven it multiple times. you are not understanding the explanation for some reason. You need to prove that a partial area is acceptable, because it just says area we have to take that to mean the area, and not some portion thereof. Permissive ruleset tells us area, and not partial area.

Answer the questions, the proof is right there:

Question 1. What is the area of a 1" base?

Question 2. where does this area have to be?

Question 3. can can this area be anywhere else?

Find out what area means and you will see that it is not a logical fallacy. It does not need to say entirely because area says that for us.

It is like if I handed you a sphere and said 'place the volume of that sphere underwater.' you do not have to say entirely because the other qualifiers make the word entirely redundant.

Here is an example, a 2" by 2" square is 4 square inches.

I take a sheet of paper and put it on the table, I then remove the paper and say put the 2" by 2" square where the paper used to be.

You would then have to put all 4 square inches where the paper used to be, because the square is 2" by 2" no part could extend to where the paper was not, since i said to put it where the paper used to be.

Same applies in this case, except we are working with the circumference of a circle instead of a square base.

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

You really think it will stop at ten? The last one I referenced went past 20.

(Dis)embarking is too much of an issue.

Just never embark your guys in vehicles--that's what I do.

Page 61 - The vehicle is destroyed, as its fuel and ammo detonate, ripping it apart in a spectacular explosion. Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP- hit. The vehicle is then removed and is replaced with an area of difficult ground representing scattered wreckage or a crater (if you have one).

Note: Vehicle drivers, gunners and other crew are killed
if their vehicle suffers either Destroyed results.

Page 67

wrecked - The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test . Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed . After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck .

explodes! - The unit suffers a number of Strength 4 , AP- hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting . The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test.

=======================

I've quoted both the wrecked and explodes! rules for a simple reason. If you were supposed to place your models as though they had disembarked from the vehicle after it explodes then surely they would not require two different definitions.

When the vehicle is removed as per page 61's rules it clearly states that it is replaced with an area of difficult ground or a crater. As such it can be assumed that when placing your models where the vehicle used to be they should ALL be under the influence of difficult ground and will need to take terrain tests prior to moving through or out of said area.

From a fluff point of view, I can understand when a vehicle explodes there will be times when crew members or embarked personnel might be thrown from the wreckage. However, they would likely return to the wreck to pull free comrades or would otherwise be incapacitated (which is where the difficult terrain tests could also apply).

My interpretation is that the majority of any unit within an exploded vehicle needs to be within the wreckage/crater - BUT - it's not unrealistic to have a few around the outside if they wont all fit inside. They would ALL be under the influence of difficult/dangerous terrain though when they next went to move in any fashion and MUST all be in coherency.

imcdonnell wrote: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 ?

Pretty good point.

I have noticed that almost every attempt at participating in this conversation seems overshadowed by the past personal problems between certain members of this board.

After some discussion at the my LFGS, it came down to this:

The rule tells you to place the survivors where the vehicle used to be.

1. Placing them where the vehicle never was is not following the rule.
2. Placing them where the vehicle used to be AND never was is not following the rule.
3. Placing them where the vehicle used to be is following the rule.

The rationale that several people gave is that the rule is its own qualifier. The condition of being where the vehicle used to be is the specific. Anything that is not the specific, is not following the rule. One person used this as an analogy:

You need to be red.

If you are yellow, you are not red.

If you are yellow and red, you are not red.

If you are red, you are red.

I played the role of some people here and said that in the second circumstance above, that technically I am red so fulfill the rule and was refuted in that the rule only asked for you to be red and that disregarding that you were also yellow was selective ignorance for the purposes of claiming only red when in reality you are red/yellow.

I am completely unsure why some here think that partially is even justified in the first place. I asked previously and didn't appear to be answered other then that "other" rules say that measuring model to model is just to the base, that being partially in cover counts as being in cover, etc, etc. However in this situation there is no measuring model to model, you are not given the permissive to count being partially where the vehicle used to be as being where the vehicle used to be, etc, etc.

I personally think that the linguistic hoops that some of you propose is completely ridiculous. It seems pretty simple:

If you are not where the vehicle used to be, you are not where the vehicle used to be.

If you are where the vehicle used to be AND not where the vehicles used to be, you are where the vehicle used to be AND not where the vehicle used to be.

If you are where the vehicle used to be, you are where the vehicle used to be.

Where does the rule require you to be?

Unfortunately, your argument falls apart at one critical point.

If you are both yellow and red, you are in fact red. You are also yellow, but if the only requirement is "be red," you've met the requirement. You're red. You could be red, yellow, green, blue, black, white, purple, pink, burnt umber and chartreuse, but the fact remains that while you are all of those things, you are still red. You are not ENTIRELY red, but nothing in the rule says you must be so. Just "red."

It's like bars. In order to order a drink in the US, you need to be 21 years of age or older. If a person who is twenty-two years of age, brown-haired, short, and stocky walks into the bar, and the bartender says, "are you twenty-one or older," the person may answer, "yes," and not be lying. He is also brown-haired, short, stocky, but none of these things are considered when determining whether or not he may order a drink.

By the logic of some of the posters in this thread, a person who is twenty-two years of age, short, stocky, and brown-haired could not legally order a drink, because he is not JUST twenty-two years of age. He's all those other things, too, and while no law says he may not be those things, he's not ONLY twenty-two years of age, so therefore may not order a drink.

So another one of these threads! I love it. These are so much fun.....

So let me ask everyone this, as this is an in game example. In deployment, if you place your models only partially in your deployment zone are you still placing your models legally? (do not even dare to come back with well since there are no rules for deployment blah blah blah)

If you came up with any other answer then no, please cite a page reference and quote from the rule book. If not then please refrain from posting, as you have no evidence to prove what you are saying, and you are not adding to the topic in anyway other then to boost your post count.

Also, the lack of something does not prove anything execpt that there is nothing to help you, or hurt you. This is also periously close to it doesn't say I can't so I can logic. (again) I say hammers for everyone!! Time to start blasting MC Hammer's, Hammer Time, while playing games. Oh I destroyed that LR (crunch,smash,bam this is starting to feel like the old batman TV show) look you LR is now in itty bitty pieces, and you have a head vain throbbing that looks like the size of the dead sea coming across your forehead.. (thinks to self) Why? Oh your angry because I smashed your model that I killed, well the rule book does not say I can't smash your models anytime I "destroy/kill" them, so I can!!!! By the way here is your hammer for destroying my models, also I would like you to note that my models are made of this really really hard stuff called titanium, so good luck with destroying my models!

As I am sure that we can all agree this thread is nothing like the last long thread that went 20 pages, had an intense amount of flaming and both sides being very angry at each other. I lol at that and this thread, for really this is all a giant crap shoot. So much is made about RAW, but is there not an equally and possibly more important RAI requirement?

Wrong, bars in the US only require that you be at least 21yrs old, without any other requirement. So being 22yrs old and however you look, you have met the requirement to at least be 21yrs.

The creation of an absolute is not by my writing. Where the vehicles used to be is the absolute that the BRB puts forth.

Being where the vehicle was and where it never was does not meet that absolute because it adds another condition/status that is not written in the rule.

That has been added to the rule arbitrarily by you without permission. While you say that you are fulfilling the rule by being where it was you are also violating the rule by being where it never was. By your opinion, being where it was partially trumps where it never was and you are not given the permission to make that judgment call.

You are given a simple condition to meet and you are creating a complex condition to meet it without permission.

And if you are yellow and red, you are not red. You are yellow and red.

Brother Ramses wrote:You are given a simple condition to meet and you are creating a complex condition to meet it without permission.

The simple condition is being placed where the transport was.

The complex condition that it must ONLY take up the space of the ENTIRE transport is a bit wierd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:And if you are yellow and red, you are not red.

We asked for a white cat, that is a white cat with blue eyes!

KP - except the rules require you to not be more than X" inches. Using the rules for measuring I can show you are more than X" if any part of your base is outside.

Oddly enough this was tried int he other thread, and debunked in exactly the same fashion. Old argument that has never held.

DT - using "within" as shorthand. Please find ANY qualifier on how much of the model must be within the area specified. Failure to do so proves that the unqualified statement is correct. Do you understand the difference between unqualified and qualified statements, and that the rules have a single unqualified requirement to fulfill?

Additionally: you still cannot find a quote, therefore retract your libel, please.

DR - you are still inserting the word "entire" in front of this. As you have attempted many many many times you cannot do so. Your "default" was debunked at least two pages ago. Stop trying it. Additionally your hilariously skewed argument requires that you fill the entire area where the vehicle was - which is entirely impossible as circles dont tessellate. This is because, to be consistent, your "entire" fallacy must be consistent across all models - including the vehicle. So the "entire area" must be placed within the "entire area" where the vehicle used to be. Good luck doing that.

Kirsanth pointed this out first, but you didnt seem to understand it the first 2 or 3 times, so i thought I would give it a go.

Finally: stop with the C&P. Your argument didnt work the first time as it suffers from a HUGE FLAW, so simply C&P'ing it in the hopes that eventually we'll agree - not happening.

Bottom line: the rules ONLY REQUIRE that "am i where the vehicle used to be?" is TRUE. Antyhing else you happen to be, at the same time, is entirely irrelevant as the rule makes no further claims you have to fulfill.

This would not be true if they had said "place the models entirely inside where the vehicle used to be" - luckily they didnt say that.

In the area terrain rules we are given permission to "be inside" the terrain just by touching it.

In the (dis)embarking rules we are given permission to "be within" 2" just by touching the border.

In the deployment rules we are not given such a permission and must deploy entirely within the deployment zone.


Are we given such a permission in the Vehicle Damage rules?

Nos, "where the vehicle used to be" is the absolute. If you place the model where the vehicle used to and where it never was, you are not meeting the absolute. The only statement your position can ever truly make is that you are and are not where the vehicle used to be because you are not meeting the absolute set by the rule.

Look, for cover, you can claim being in cover when you are partially in cover because the permission is explicitly given.

When measuring from model to model, you can measure to the outside edge of the base, because the permission is explicitly given.

For determining that models partially under a template are hit, explicit permission is given.

You are given an absolute. No type of permissions are given. To assume that permission is given because it isn't prohibited is wrong.

Steelmage99 wrote:In the deployment rules we are not given such a permission and must deploy entirely within the deployment zone.

Actually this is not entirely true.

Deployment tells you to set up more than 12" or more than 18" away.

There is not a "within" any more, than either set in question has an "entirely".

I apologize then. My example is bad.

My statement still stands though.

BR - it is not an absolute. It is an unqualified statement.

Partially and Entirely both satisfy that statement, as they both set the statement to "TRUE".

The statment does not, in any way shape or form, make any other claims you have to fulfill. It does not care if you are ALSO not entirely where the vehicle used to be, in the same way that the rules for moving on from reserves dont care if you are ALSO "off" the table when you move partially on(to) the table.

Brother Ramses wrote:No type of permissions are given.

The measuring rule still gives this permission.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Additionally: you still cannot find a quote, therefore retract your libel, please.

Quote my libel please? I've printed no falsehoods about you. My not finding a nonexistant quote that I asked you for first is not libel.

Thats not how this works. I asked you for the quote first. It doesn't exist, so you can't hold me to finding it because you can't. I did ask this first. Turning it around is a clever maneuver, but not in a space where people can look at timestamps and such if they choose. Its not on me. Its on YOU.
We have this thing in the states called burden of proof. I don't have to prove anything to you. You've got to shovel some dooky on me if you want to call me dirty.
I've quoted you misquoting the rulebook, and tried to take you to task multiple times to find this quote that lets you be in two places at the same time, one of which is outside where the vehicle was. There have been other people to cite great examples of why you're wrong in this case.

Looking through 7 pages, I see very few arguments for your side, other than childish repetition.
I've seen some great examples of why you're wrong and you dismiss them outright with the justification you've seen it before and it was wrong then.
Without quoting anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:No type of permissions are given.

The measuring rule still gives this permission.

What is being measured in the placement of models as per pg 67?

Doomthumbs wrote:What is being measured in the placement of models as per pg 67?

Page 3, exactly like finding if you are within 3" of an objective.

Or do you claim the entirety of (each model in) a unit must be within 3" to count?

Edited for a misplaced parenthetical comment.

DT - the libel is in stating I made things up in the other thread. When asked to substantiate or retract on the 3rd (?) time of asking you only came up with a BAD paraphrase (So bad it makes absolutely no sense)


So again: retract or substantiate.

Finally: I have given you the quote which shows the requirement has no additional restrictions placed on it, and that both "partially" and "entirely" satisfy this.

It is now on YOU to prove the restiction exists. I am assuming that you are trolling now, as this is a very simple premise: YOU MUST FIND THE RESTRICTION as your argument relies on there being a restriction.

My side is proven. Yours is not.

I am not using the word entire, the phrase Area of the base does that for me.

Answer the questions, the proof is right there:

Question 1. What is the area of a 1" base?

Question 2. where does this area have to be?

Question 3. can this area be anywhere else?

kirsanth wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:No type of permissions are given.

The measuring rule still gives this permission.

No it doesn't. Measuring from a models base to a models base is not the same as measuring from a models base to where a vehicle usd to be. You are not measuring to a model.

And Nos, it is an absolute. Where the vehicle used to be is determined by the base that the model occupies. That is an absolute.

Now it may seem that I am talking from both sides of my mouth, in that I tell Kir is does not apply and Nos that it does, however I am not.

Measuring of models and the absolute that the model occupies the base is used to determine where the vehicle used to be.

Measuring of models to determine if the survivors are where the vehicle used to be is incorrect. You have the survivors but not model to measure to. You have where the vehicle used to be, but no base to measure to.

Kirsanth, I understand. But we're not measuring between units as on pg 3. This is Pg 67, and the Rule qualifies surviving passengers. Thats gonna mean that you deal with placing the models on an individual basis inside that box.
Just like you can't place them inside your deployment zone AND a little bit beyond. You're a tyranid man. What does that mean?
Imagine where the vehicle IS. What DR has defined as it reads in the txt as the area it encompasses. Now put the models where the vehicle WAS. See that frowny face I get when you put it where the vehicle was not?
This isn't disembarking, folks.
If I was replacing an chaos marine with a demon, would you let me put it at the outer limits of where the original model was? No.
Is there a quote to show any precedent for partial placement being allowed? No.
Put it on that beautiful felt pad I made. I went to special effort, so do it. I made it easy for you.
If we were at a gamestore, there would be a dude in the back that yelled "DO IT!" right here. I'd buy him a soda.
No measurement happening. Pg3 says distance between two units is the shortest distance between two base points. So what? We aren't measuring anything here except the area of the vehicle's footprint.
Again, can I be 'partially' in the deployment zone? Part of my model is! Part of it isn't! Woo party in the streets, but no. Just NO. You know you want to do that with your raveners but can't.

DeathReaper wrote:
Question 1. What is the area of a 1" base? Irrelevant.
Question 2. where does this area have to be? Where the vehicle used to be.
Question 3. can can this area be anywhere else? Yes, so long as it is also where the vehicle used to be.

Now. Since you are saying that the entire base has to be within the defined area, how to you calculate scoring units?

There is no "partially" listed there either--and this is also not measuring between units.

The scoring units must be within 3" of objectives.
Entirely--by your logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doomthumbs wrote:Again, can I be 'partially' in the deployment zone?

You missed this last time too.
Deployment says to place OUTSIDE of a given area. Not INSIDE.

Editing to add:
This is missed by a lot of people, actually. I always see people lining up exactly 18" (or whatever) away, when that is specifically not allowed. As partially within 18" is within 18" and deployment has to be more than 18".

kirsanth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:You missed this last time too.
Deployment says to place OUTSIDE of a given area. Not INSIDE.

Wheeeere?

Pitched Battle: "..more than 12 " away from the table's middle line." AND less than 12" if part of my model is more than 12?

Spearhead: " ... more than 12" away from the center of the table." And less?

Can I scout my troops less than 12" away from you if i'm also putting them more than 12"?

No. In all cases. I didn't miss it, I chose to gracefully ignore it as the steaming pile of horse excrement that it is. Ever the optomist, I look for a pony.
So why can I put it where the vehicle was AND not where it was again?




(Theres no quote for that.)