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.

SaintHazard wrote: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,"

Unless it requires the area of your skin to be red, then your area is not red.

Which the BRB says, the models = Area of the base needs to be "Red" if it is partially "Yellow" then the area is not "Red".

kirsanth wrote:

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 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.

Question 1. What is the area of a 1" base? (See there is the issue. It seems you are ignoring rules.)

Question 2. where does this area have to be? (Good job you are 1 for 3)

Question 3. can this area be anywhere else? (It does not tell us we can place them anywhere else, so we can't according to the permissive ruleset.)

Scoring units have their own set of rules. They do not use the rules for Destroyed - Explodes.

DeathReaper wrote:Scoring units have their own set of rules.

And those rules let you know what, exactly?

Do they have to be entirely within 3" of the objective?

If not, please tell me why?

It seems you are applying a double standard to assume entirely is needed in one place it is lacking, and not another.

Both ask you to measure to/from one model/unit to a place instead of another model/unit.

I am not sure exactly what the scoring units rules are, But they have different rules and those rules do not apply to Destroyed - Explodes.

DeathReaper wrote:I am not sure exactly what the scoring units rules are, But they have different rules and those rules do not apply to Destroyed - Explodes.

Oh, indeed, so let me show you why I asked.

"At the end of the game you control an objective if there is at least one of your scoring units, and no enemy unit. . . within 3" of it."

So.
You must have your unit within 3" of the objective.
Why now, can you have part of a unit/model within 3" and score, if your thought that within the area of the transport requires it?

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:I am not sure exactly what the scoring units rules are, But they have different rules and those rules do not apply to Destroyed - Explodes.

Oh, indeed, so let me show you why I asked.

"At the end of the game you control an objective if there is at least one of your scoring units, and no enemy unit. . . within 3" of it."

So.
You must have your unit within 3" of the objective.
Why now, can you have part of a unit/model within 3" and score, if your thought that within the area of the transport requires it?

Because those rules work off units and not models.

They define unit differently than they define models/surviving passengers/area of the base.

Having a model somewhere and having a unit somewhere are two totally different things.

DeathReaper wrote:Because those rules work off units and not models.

They define unit differently than they define models/surviving passengers/area of the base.

Having a model somewhere and having a unit somewhere are two totally different things.

You realize there are some SERIOUS problems with that, right?

Like units are made of models.
A model can indeed be a unit alone-like the transport, or an IC.

I will stop, as I think hope you understand the silliness your statement invites.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because those rules work off units and not models.

They define unit differently than they define models/surviving passengers/area of the base.

Having a model somewhere and having a unit somewhere are two totally different things.

You realize there are some SERIOUS problems with that, right?

Like units are made of models.
A model can indeed be a unit alone-like the transport, or an IC.

I will stop, as I think hope you understand the silliness your statement invites.

Yes silly RAW is silly RAW.

I get that RAW causes problems when it comes to situations like 1 model left in a unit or IC's

but for measuring to a unit you use one set of rules, for Destroyed - Explodes you use a different set.

DeathReaper wrote:but for measuring to a unit you use one set of rules, for Destroyed - Explodes you use a different set.

I was rather expecting that, despite all hopes.

Where are these other measuring rules you keep hinting at?

kirsanth wrote:

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.

As Dr. Cox would say,

"Wrong wrong wrong wroooong, wrong wrong wrong wroooong, you're wroooong!"

Nice attempt at trying to throw this into the fray but it fails whe you read the exact rule,

"At the end of the game you control and objective if there is at least one of your scoring units, and no enemy unit (any unit, scoring or not), within 3" of it. AS DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES VARY IN SHAPE AND SIZE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO AGREE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GAME EXACTLY WHERE THIS DISTANCE WILL BE MEASURED FROM."

So it is not only NOT exactly alike, it is NOTHING alike.

They are talking about the objective marker there mate, as we are already told on page three how to measure distance involving models...

ChrisCP wrote:They are talking about the objective marker there mate, as we are already told on page three how to measure distance involving models...

And we are told to disregard measuring model to model because of the varying sizes and shapes of objectives and instead discuss before the game begins how that measurment will be made.

Brother Ramses wrote:And we are told to disregard measuring model to model because of the varying sizes and shapes of objectives and instead discuss before the game begins how that measurment will be made.

So we agree to call it the area the size of the transport. . .and it is STILL relevant.

kirsanth wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:And we are told to disregard measuring model to model because of the varying sizes and shapes of objectives and instead discuss before the game begins how that measurment will be made.

So we agree to call it the area the size of the transport. . .and it is STILL relevant.

No, the rules tell us that a model occupies its base therefore where the vehicle used to be is the same size of the base it pccupied. Please note the past tense use of occupied since the vehicle is no longer there to provide a model to model measurement.

Your attempted counterpoint clearly tells you to discuss how to measure from the objective to the unit before the game. The destroyed-exploded rule for passengers clearly tells you to place the survivors where the vehicle used to be as defined as the base that it formerly occupied. Zero relevance

Brother Ramses wrote:No, the rules tell us that a model occupies its base therefore where the vehicle used to be is the same size of the base it pccupied. Please note the past tense use of occupied since the vehicle is no longer there to provide a model to model measurement.

Which is why I mentioned objectives. We know the area they take up and measure that-akin to the transport.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote: The destroyed-exploded rule for passengers clearly tells you to place the survivors where the vehicle used to be as defined as the base that it formerly occupied.

No one disagrees with that.
It would be saying something silly like, "The destroyed-exploded rule for passengers clearly tells you to place the survivors entirely where the vehicle used to be as defined as the base that it formerly occupied" that would cause issue.

Side note:
Speak up if you play an army with transports that can or does (ab)use this. Curiosity cured the cat, and all that.

I do not have such an army, and think it would be legal for my opponent's to do so.
Just saying.

Brother Ramses wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:They are talking about the objective marker there mate, as we are already told on page three how to measure distance involving models...

And we are told to disregard measuring model to model because of the varying sizes and shapes of objectives and instead discuss before the game begins how that measurment will be made.

It's because we aren't measuring model to model surely? And just by the way we are not in any way told to disregard the rules for measurements we are told to discuss where the measurements will be made from. Don't make stuff up.

Objective rules say unit within 3". Measuring between UNITS uses the closest base point. Since it says unit.
Placing whole models in an area does not measure anything like this.

Doomthumbs wrote:Placing whole models in an area does not measure anything like this.

Damn I love me some kittens!

You disregard measuring from model to model.

During the discussion with your opponent you could agree to measure from the center point of the objective to the centerpoint of your model. Totally disregarding pg 3.

During discussion with your opponent you could agree that the scoring unt has to be placed around the unit, within 3" in a deep strike type deployment. Totally disregarding pg 3.

I could go on and on imagining interesting ways of making the unit within 3" of the objective that could be discussed with my opponent that disregard pg 3. I could even; adopt pg 3 if I so wanted giving the objective a base to measure to which while doesn't disregard pg 3, I was still not required to follow it.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:but for measuring to a unit you use one set of rules, for Destroyed - Explodes you use a different set.

I was rather expecting that, despite all hopes.

Where are these other measuring rules you keep hinting at?

I wasn't hinting at any measuring rules.

Destroyed - Explodes does not tell you to measure anything. The rules for it are on P 67.

measuring to a unit you use the rules on P.3.

Didn't mean to say there were, should have put that statement on two separate lines.

DT - you have still to retract your false statement. Please do so.

DR - "area" does NOT implicitly mean "the entire area" - you keep making that up as a "default" position

BR - it is not an absolute as being partially or entirely where the vehicle used to be is still "placing the model where the vehicle used to be"

The rule ONLY cares that "are you where the vehicle used to be?" is true - once that is true any additional status of your model is irrelevant.

Now if it had stated "place the models ONLY where the vehicle used to be" it would be an absolute - but the point is that it does not say that, whcih is where DTs "argument" fails, and substituting "area" additionally does not do that, as area is unqualified.

kirsanth wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:And we are told to disregard measuring model to model because of the varying sizes and shapes of objectives and instead discuss before the game begins how that measurment will be made.

So we agree to call it the area the size of the transport. . .and it is STILL relevant.

Or else we don't agree.

My view on this whole issue is that, despite arguments from both sides, there is no clear rule in the book that shows how to deal with the situation.

We can draw inferences from various sections of rules that deal with similar situations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DT - you have still to retract your false statement. Please do so.

DR - "area" does NOT implicitly mean "the entire area" - you keep making that up as a "default" position

BR - it is not an absolute as being partially or entirely where the vehicle used to be is still "placing the model where the vehicle used to be"

The rule ONLY cares that "are you where the vehicle used to be?" is true - once that is true any additional status of your model is irrelevant.

Now if it had stated "place the models ONLY where the vehicle used to be" it would be an absolute - but the point is that it does not say that, whcih is where DTs "argument" fails, and substituting "area" additionally does not do that, as area is unqualified.

As i suspected 3 pages ago you are being TFG

Sorry, what's your understanding and application or the rules in the situation?
Or have you just come to make 'witty asides'?

Nope, not really. You have no idea in fact how I play this in real life - i am simply stating what the rules do and do not say.

Anything you care to addd that is actually on topic and not a breach of dakka rule #1?

After 8 pages we appear to be no closer to an actual answer and this thread is now descending into bickering.

Time for some fresh air perhaps people.