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.

Nurglitch wrote:yakface: You could have also mentioned the unit coherency rules where the models in the check-marked diagrams are clearly 2" away from each other rather than within 2" of each other. In fact the entire unit is out of the unit coherency described in the text! In each of these cases there is the curious disagreement between the text and the diagram, which makes it rather difficult to use the diagram to clearly show what the text describes.

All that the diagram on page 62 clearly shows is that a portion of a model is not within 2" of the access point, and that the diagram contradicts the text. Which is unfortunate because it means we can't just solve this disagreement via reference to these diagrams.

. . .

Now, if you're going to claim that I'm "simply wrong" about the common ("basic") usage of the term 'within' you should at least note that the term has many common usages, which can be categorized by the grammatical role the term is employed in. That way you can explain to me which common usage you're referring to, and how I am misusing it, and I can learn a lesson if I am indeed wrong about that "basic" usage. I'd like to point out that I explained at least two common usages of the term 'within', that of a preposition and that of an adverb, and how to tell the difference.

Likewise if you're going to explain to me how I am misusing the particular usage, it might help if you employed a better argument. After all, if you say that you live "within" 1 mile of San Francisco, intending to mean in English that you live up to a mile away from the utmost edge of that city, you could be mis-speaking yourself and saying that you live within 1 mile of all of San Francisco when you don't mean it. Merely asserting that you don't use the word that way begs the question of whether you yourself use it correctly.

Think of it like this: Suppose when engage in basic arithmetic I was asked to add 2 and 2 together I wrote down 5. Now, that would be incorrect, assuming the usual terms "2", "+", etc. If you pointed that out to me, and I said that when I write down 5 I mean next natural number after three, then you would be wrote to point out that I should have written down 4. By writing 5 instead of 4 when I mean the next natural number after three I would be making a mistake. The mistake would be assuming that 5 means what I want it to mean, rather than having its meaning fixed by objective mathematical and linguistic structures.

First, I must state that my education of english grammar extends (barely) to a Bachelor's Degree and even so I will freely admit that I know very little actual knowledge on the subject.

With that admission out of the way I stand by my previous statement that regardless of dictionary definitions that common usage of the word "within" (as a preposition) includes situations where only a fraction of an object is "within" the specified distance.

In my previous reply I mentioned the usage of the word in relation to distance: "I live within 'X' miles of 'XX' city". The term is also used the same way in figurative phrases such as "within arm's length". If I ask you if the "table is set up within arm's length of you" the understanding is that you can touch the very edge of the table, not that the entire table is within reach of your arm.


Now, the writers of 40k are also humans who can be prone to error. The rules of 40k are pretty consistent throughout that any range, coherency distance and even the term "within" (as shown on page 62 in the disembarking diagram) refers to the concept that the object must only be partially within this distance in order to qualify. You have stated that the only thing that we can discern from these diagrams is that they contradict the text but I disagree as they are consistent with the common usage of the word (logically incorrect or otherwise).

In fact, in some cases the rules even differentiate between "within" and "entirely within" when referencing the distance that units need to be in order to achieve a mission objective. The Secure and Control mission (p82) requires units simply to be "within 6 [inches] of it" while the Field of Battle objective (p86) requires that the unit be "entirely within 12 [inches] of the centre point at the end of the game".


I understand that this argument is not logically sound, however when we play a game we are essentially making a contract between two people to play the game as they (both) understand the rules. If the vast, vast majority of players understand the common usage of the word "within" and this usage is consistent with how the rules are written in relation to the diagrams in the rulebook, then it really doesn't matter whether the players are logically correct because that is how the game is going to be played anyway.

Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

Lordhat wrote:Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

If your idea of 'fair' includes making up rules as you go, then indeed it's fair.

The rules are crystal clear on the point. If you're within 6" at all, you get the save. Not a single point worth further discussion has been brought up to say otherwise.

mauleed wrote:

Lordhat wrote:Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

If your idea of 'fair' includes making up rules as you go.....

Yes, sometimes it is. AS a TO there are times when you are called on to make decisions, not covered by the rules. I'll be looking into this a bit more as I havn't had a chance to actually read the Ork codex; but as of now I'll stand my ground. IF this entire dispute comes up during a game in a tournament I'm running (with the whole 'within' debate and all) I would just default to the basic rules. Keeping an event on time is more important than any one or two player's need to be right.

Yakface: Fortunately one does not need a degree in linguistics to have sufficient knowledge of English grammar. Just about anything you need to know can be found in a grammar book. There are grammar primers that can be found online.

Given that I recommend pulling out a grammar and a dictionary and looking at how 'within' can be used. It can be used as a preposition, a word which shows the relationship between a noun or pronoun and another word in the sentence; position, direction, time, manner, means, or agent. It can be used as an adverb, a word that describes a verb, an adjective, or even another adverb; manner, quantity, time, place, and intensity. It can be used as a noun, a word that names things such as persons, animals, places, objects, events, and concepts.

Now the interesting thing about English dictionaries is that they report the common usage, rather than prescribe it in the case of French and Latin dictionaries. What you will find in an up to date English dictionary are colloquial, formal, and specialized uses as well as grammatical usage.

Now a figurative expression is an expression that is not literal. Which is to say that a figurative phrase is not one which directly refers to some persons, animals, places, objects, or events, but a concept or logical statement. If you were to ask me whether "the table was set up within arms' reach of me", the context of the situation giving us the understanding that by such a phrase you meant only part of the table was within my reach rather than all of it, you would not be using a figurative phrase. You would be using a literal phrase, and you would be mispeaking yourself by mis-using the term 'within'. Now, if you used the same phrase figuratively to ask me whether "the table was set up within arms' reach of me", and the context of the situation gave us the understanding that by such a phrase you meant to ask whether I found the table's set up convenient, then you would be speaking figuratively and rightly because the terms including 'within' would not be fixed by the size of the table and its physical relation to me. The meaning of the terms would be fixed by my convenience, rather than a spatial arrangement of objects (although obviously my convenience would involve the spatial arrangement of objects as well as the values I give to those arrangements, etc).

Seeing as the figurative is not the literal and the Kustom Force Field rules with which we are concerned as being phrased literally, about the position of models on the tabletop, rather than figuratively it seems that whether we commonly use the term figuratively is moot and that whether we use the term wrongly is what we're trying to avoid. That is to say it is what we are trying to avoid when we sit in front of our computers and talk about the rules of the game, rather than sit around a gaming table and talk about the game we are playing. In the first case we are concerned with the information found in our rulebooks, and in the second case we are concerned with moving the game forward and not wasting time. So while the meaning of 'within' does not matter to people playing the game, as they can apply whatever rules they want to their game, it does matter to people discussing how the rules should be played were we to sit down and play the game according to the book.

The rule sounds pretty solid to me in it's original form.

Edit: I lowered myself to a level that didn't suit me while trying to combat egotism. You know the old parable: Never try to argue with an idiot, as they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with expierence. The same goes for those who view themselves "more intelligent" than others as well; however, the direction your still drug is down.

I posted this a few days ago and have had such a chuckle to the debate it's created, LOL! Thanx so much for the thought guys. I agree with those who say it's only required to get one model inside the 6" to garner the save.

I've proxied around ten games since snagging a copy of the codex and I've been trying to get around my typical "Speed Freek" list and instead going with a foot slogging army.

The problem I've encountered so far is simply not having a save against guns that typical have cut a unit to a third by the time it get's into the fray. When you look at the results of a shattered squad against a regular squad of marines you'll see that the I3 kills them without numbers (Or maybe it's just been my games)

The KFF is one of the few things to use that gives an Ork a chance to do what he's born to do! I've yet to use one on the table because I wasn't sure of the rulings, so maybe now I'll have a shot at not being mangled marching across the field.

Thanks again for the input, I really enjoyed the responses!


wOOkie

This reminds me a lot of the Tyranid hive mind power Catalyst. In all the games that I've played where this rule has been used, it was always understood to designate that the unit merely had to have at least one model "within" the range. I mean, come on, if you put your foot in someone's doorway, you are technically WITHIN their home, your foot being an extension of yourself while not being the whole. The Rule doesn't state the WHOLE unit, just the unit, in any form. The term "within" mean to designate a limit, and when that limit is met, in any fashion, it is achieved.

Again, the wording for the KFF is exactly worded as that of Catalyst, so if you find the answer for that rule, you make clear KFF.

Lordhat wrote:

mauleed wrote:

Lordhat wrote:Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

If your idea of 'fair' includes making up rules as you go.....

Yes, sometimes it is. AS a TO there are times when you are called on to make decisions, not covered by the rules. I'll be looking into this a bit more as I havn't had a chance to actually read the Ork codex; but as of now I'll stand my ground. IF this entire dispute comes up during a game in a tournament I'm running (with the whole 'within' debate and all) I would just default to the basic rules. Keeping an event on time is more important than any one or two player's need to be right.

Seriously, that's mind blowing. You should apply for a job running GW events, you'd fit right in.

Sure, there are times when there are things not covered by the rules, but this clearly isn't one of them. And I notice you're 'ruling as a TO' reflects your own personal bias, not anything based on the rules (which you haven't even read) or fairness. Just your desire to play amatuer game designer.

In other words, you appear to put your own need to be right ahead of everything.

I'd have to agree with DaBoss. The rule does not state that more than half the unit has to be within the range of the KFF. Giving the benefit of the doubt here I'd explain this as having a similiar effect as the Waaagh! or how other orks effect Wierdboyz. My interpertation: If 1 model is within the KFF effect range, the whole unit is covered.

The rule does not state that any portion of the unit needs to be in range of the Kustom Force Field. It states that the unit needs to be in the range given.

DaBoss wrote:This reminds me a lot of the Tyranid hive mind power Catalyst. In all the games that I've played where this rule has been used, it was always understood to designate that the unit merely had to have at least one model "within" the range. I mean, come on, if you put your foot in someone's doorway, you are technically WITHIN their home, your foot being an extension of yourself while not being the whole. The Rule doesn't state the WHOLE unit, just the unit, in any form. The term "within" mean to designate a limit, and when that limit is met, in any fashion, it is achieved.

Again, the wording for the KFF is exactly worded as that of Catalyst, so if you find the answer for that rule, you make clear KFF.

reading this made me double take and go back and read the Tyranid codex.
I think i was leaning away from siding with Nurglitch's (entirely sound/valid but perhaps too much so) response.

The catalyst example threw me onto Nurglitch's side. I think I have always misread Catalyst the same wayDaBoss did until now.
Read "HIVE MIND POWERS" and "CLOSE COMBAT BIOMORPHS" both on page 31 again. Specifically "Catalyst" and "Bonesword".

Catalyst - ". . . the Tyranid player can nominate a single Tyranid unit that is within 24 (inches) of the creature using the power"

Bonesword - ". . . the Hive Tyrant may use the Bonesword to extend the effects of Catalyst to all broods with a model within 6 (inches)"

couple of words go a LONG way there. . . .

exact same as Catalyst, eh?

DaBoss wrote:This reminds me a lot of the Tyranid hive mind power Catalyst. In all the games that I've played where this rule has been used, it was always understood to designate that the unit merely had to have at least one model "within" the range. I mean, come on, if you put your foot in someone's doorway, you are technically WITHIN their home, your foot being an extension of yourself while not being the whole. The Rule doesn't state the WHOLE unit, just the unit, in any form. The term "within" mean to designate a limit, and when that limit is met, in any fashion, it is achieved.

Again, the wording for the KFF is exactly worded as that of Catalyst, so if you find the answer for that rule, you make clear KFF.

DaBoss brings up a strong point. This post officially ends the confusion for me. TY.

strafed: How do you figure? kirsanth has definitively shown that the Kustom Force Field rule is like the Catalyst rule and unlike the Bone Sword rule, and that the difference is significant.

The Kustom Force Field and Catalyst rules say that the unit must be within x". The Bone Sword rule says that the effects of Catalyst may be extended to all units with a model within x".

If we suppose that we should treat Kustom Force Fields like we treat Catalyst, then we cannot treat either like Bone Swords and apply them to units that are only partially within the stated range.

Eldar psychic powers work that way, too. One model from
a unit within x range, all models benefit/get hurt.

If they intended to make the KFF like the old one, then it's
pretty stupid of them not to include the wording in a new
codex. Who wants to carry around BOTH versions of a
codex to use one piece of wargear correctly?

Of the Eldar Psychic Powers Doom requires the unit to be within range, Guide and Fortune requires one model in the unit to be within range, while Eldritch Storm and Mind War are directed at individual models.

GW is certainly consistent about whether whole units must be in range, partial units must be in range, or models must be in range.

I had the thought this morning, how does the KFF wording compare with the Necron ResOrb wording?

I would suspect that the designer's _intention_ was to duplicate that effect, however poorly the actual grammar warped that intention.

The text of Resurrection Orb expresses its rules like the texts of Guide, Fortune, and Bone Swords. Each of these rules state that they affect units with a model within x".

The text of the Kustom Force Field expresses its rules like the texts of Doom and Catalyst. Each of these rules state that they affect units within x".

I kind of forgot to come back to this thread when things got busy at work for a week there.

I still cannot accept the definition of "within" meaning "entirely within" in the case of the 40k rules.

It remains that the term "within" is commonly accepted in many situations to mean that if any part of an object is in the specified distance then the object is "within" that distance.

For example, say I pull a hundred random people and put them in a parking lot and tell them: "If that car over there is within ten feet of you then you now own it."

The front of the car is 9 1/2 feet away from them while the back end is clearly beyond 10 feet (there are measurement markers on the ground so everyone knows the distance just by looking).

How many of those 100 people do you think would say the car is within 10 feet of them even though the back end is clearly beyond?

I'd wager at least 90 of those people would agree with that statement (if not more).

The fact is that no matter what dictionary we cite, the common accepted usage of the word is different.

The fact also remains that the 40k rules have, in two separate places, diagrams that specify a distance and use the term "within" and show models partially in this distance (the 'characters in an assault' diagram on page 52 & the vehicle disembarking diagram on page 62).

These are diagrams specifically made to help illustrate the meaning of the author's words.

I think I can safely say that the rulebook is consistent in its usage of the word "within" in relation to distance. The only visual diagrams in the book that deal with distance and use the word "within" both clearly show portions of models outside of the given range yet still considered "within" the distance specified.


Unless we can find a clear example in the rules of a diagram using the term "within" and showing a model/unit partially in that distance being considered outside, I personally believe it is safe to assume that the authors use the term "within" in the rules as the commonly accepted definition I have presented above.

I think this belief is further backed up by the author's use of the term "entirely within" (pg 86), as the word "entirely" would be completely redundant if the word "within" always meant wholly within.

Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range? Do you mean to say that these are the same?

Also, take a look at the unit coherency diagrams on P.15. Notice anything interesting about them?

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range? Do you mean to say that these are the same?

Yes. I think they are two different ways the author says essentially the same thing.

Also, take a look at the unit coherency diagrams on P.15. Notice anything interesting about them?

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Please fill me in.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range? Do you mean to say that these are the same?

Also, take a look at the unit coherency diagrams on P.15. Notice anything interesting about them?

Well from a rules standpoint you sure like to argue, but what about the huge price increase. It seems to me its intended use is to get footsloggers across the board, as static units can just take up residence in cover. So what use would it be to support a 10 man (or however tiny a squad would have to be) unit across the board. One battlecannon shot would still decimate it, and with a barebones big mek cost more than the unit its supporting if there is no nob with a klaw. So if you take into account its obvious intended use, you can draw the logical conclusion of how a poorly worded rule is meant to be played.

Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range?

As for the unit coherency diagrams, I'd recommend that you keep looking. I don't want to poison the well, so to speak.

Orock: That the points cost of the wargear has increased since the last edition and expression of its rules has change since the last edition does not concern me. What they are now concerns me.

I can't see how it is intended to be used, and since it has been proven that divining intention from text is impossible I'll have to take your word for it. I can only see the text of the rules. However I should like to see the logical derivation by which we can assure ourselves that your conclusion is "logical".

It should be logical in its context. I think we can agree that it seems a good way for a horde army to get across the board with 1/3 less casualties then they would normally suffer without protection. Say you play a 750 point game with horde orks vs mechanized guard. Assume they have 2 leman russ with them. Now in a small points game 2 leman russ could concentrate fire on 2 squads of 20 to 30 orks and send at least one of them packing, and potentially both from the slowdown of moving all those models thru inevitable difficult terrain. Now with the shield at least those kills arent guaranteed, and puts more risk and strategy into the game. You as the imperial guard player have to calculate the higher chance they will make it across the board, and take that into account when target priority comes up.

Without the mob up rules to save orks anymore, any army with 3 pieplates or more could see an ork horde army off with little to no risk. And without the confers a +5 cover save to all models in the unit, it becomes much to combersome and unwieldy to use. Nobody in their right orky brain is going to try and cram 30 orks plus mek into a tight 6" circle for protection, unless they enjoy letting pie plates roll 15 dice for wounds. You cant just take shottily written rules as face value, you have to be impartial and consider the spirit of the wargear, and how it relates to the rest of the army.

Orock: Well that's the thing. The Warhammer 40k rules aren't shoddily written. Perhaps not enough redundancy for the audience they're aimed at, but grammatically and terminologically they seem pretty clear and unambiguous to me, particularly when taken in the context of how the rules are expressed in Warhammer 40k, English grammar, and so on.

Incidentally I have yet to see you cash out the term "logical". You haven't demonstrated that what you are calling "logical" is actually "logical" rather than merely "convincing to you".

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range?

As for the unit coherency diagrams, I'd recommend that you keep looking. I don't want to poison the well, so to speak.

Why do they use different terms to describe essentially the same game mechanic? Of course I can only speculate, but it the case of Cayalyst/Boneswords it seems pretty likely that the good old cut-and-paste is to blame. Catalyst in the 3rd edition codex was worded pretty much exactly as it is now (besides the range being less), so I would contend that when it came time to re-write Catalyst they simply cut-and-paste the existing text they had and then altered the range.

The Bonesword, OTOH did not exist in the 3rd edition codex and therefore it was entirely new rules text.

The same is likely true of the KFF. They had existing rules text for the item so he just altered it in such a way as to make it effect units more easily. So the reason, I speculate, that the KFF wording didn't become the "if one model in the unit is within range" is one of laziness. The writer had the existing text and chose to sloppily edit it to change its meaning rather than writing completely new text which would have made it more clear.

Also, it would be pretty unprecedented for a piece of wargear to go up more than double in points and at the same time be reduced dramatically in effectiveness which is exactly what you are arguing has happened.


Last, I'm not going to wrack my brain trying to figure out what you're insinuating about the coherency diagram. If you'd like to share your thoughts with me I'm always open to new points of view. If not, then I suppose your revelation will remain yours alone.

Yakface: I'm not here to speculate. I'm here to talk about what the rules printed on the page say. The rules are curiously consistent on the matter. Some rules indicate the whole unit and some rules indicate partial units, and the difference is that "unit" and "a unit with a model" are different.

The most obvious difference is the grammatical difference in the expression of these units. I've explained the grammar of the term 'within', and I shouldn't have to explain the grammatical difference of these phrases.

Whether the wargear has changed from edition to edition is irrelevant to what the text means.

Now, the reason why I asked you to look at the diagram without telling you what to look for is that I wanted you to figure it out for yourself. Look at the edges denoting the distance between the members of a unit in the check-marked diagrams and then read the text. You will notice that the distance between the models is 2" when the rules require them to be within 2". The rules in the text disagree with that of the diagram.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: I'm not here to speculate. I'm here to talk about what the rules printed on the page say. The rules are curiously consistent on the matter. Some rules indicate the whole unit and some rules indicate partial units, and the difference is that "unit" and "a unit with a model" are different.

Now, the reason why I asked you to look at the diagram without telling you what to look for is that I wanted you to figure it out for yourself. Look at the edges denoting the distance between the members of a unit in the check-marked diagrams and then read the text. You will notice that the distance between the models is 2" when the rules require them to be within 2". The rules in the text disagree with that of the diagram.

The coherency rules don't use the word "within". They simply state that the mdoels must not be further than 2" from each other, which the diagram does depict.

More importantly, this diagram is still consistent with all of the other diagrams in the rulebook in that when a distance is specified as long as that distance is enough to reach any part of the model (the edge of its base) then the model is considered within that distance.

As I've pointed out numerous times, this interpetation of the term "within" is also the widely accepted definition of the word. Were you to go poll a random sampling of people around you I guarantee you would find what I say to be the truth.

So ultimately this situation boils down to one of two possibilities:

Either all of the diagrams in the book that relate to distances and the term "within" are incorrect or else your definition of the word "within" does not match the one used by the authors.

Which do you think is more likely?


And as for me speculating, you asked why the designers would use two different phrasing to describe the same game effect and I provided you with a reasonable explanation. Obviously it has to be speculation as we can never truly know the answer without asking the designers ourselves.

Yakface: I wasn't asking you for the motivations or intentions of the designers, I was asking why we should consider these different grammatical constructions to mean the same thing. As in: explain to me why two phrases that say different things somehow state the same thing.

Likewise you may have noticed that I was paraphrasing the coherency rules rather than quoting them, so whether or not they used the term "within" is irrelevant so long as they used an equivalent expression. The expression that they used, and I quote, was "the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2"." In the diagram the edge is labeled 2".

If you subtracted this distance from between two models in the check-marked diagrams you would end up with models adjacent to each other, right? And there's no distance between them then, right? Well, if that is true, then the models in each check-marked diagrams are more than 2" away. If they were no more than 2" away from each other then their bases would overlap where the edges of those bases moved 2" closer to each other.

Let me illustrate.

Suppose we have bases like so [o] and empty distance like so [-] such that [-][-] indicates 2". Remember that although bases have a diameter of less than an inch, we can treat as though they did such that [o] = [-], and [-] is 1, [-][-] is 2, [-][-][-] is 3, etc

This is what those unit coherency diagrams indicate: [o][-][-][o]. It looks right, doesn't it? No more than [-][-] between the two [o].

Now let's take another situation, to illustrate the formal properties indicated by sentences involving "more than".

[o] = [o], 1 is equal to 1. There is no distance between the outer [o] and itself.
[o][o] > [o], 2 is 1 more than 1. There is one distance between the outer [o], the distance between them is 1
[o][-][o] > [o], 3 is 2 more than 1. There are two distances between the outer [], the distance between them is 2
[o][-][-][o] > [o], 4 is 3 more than 1. There are three distances between the outer [], the distance between them is 3.

While there are only [-][-] between the two [o][o], if we subtract [-][-] from [o][-][-][o] we are left with [o][o] the distance between which is 1 and 1 > 0. This should seem counter-intuitive at first, but think about it carefully. If there is no more than 2" between one model and another, then if we subtract 2" from that there should be 0". But the only thing that can have no distance between it is a single thing and itself. Therefore [o][-][-][o] cannot indicate that the [o] have no more than [-][-] between them.

Essentially this is why points, edges, and so on are undefined in geometry, and thus occupy no space themselves because if they are you get stupid like the unit coherency diagram where there is more than 2" between the models in the diagram because the edge naively indicates 2" between the bases, the areas occupied by the models.

Nurglitch wrote:
If you subtracted this distance from between two models in the check-marked diagrams you would end up with models adjacent to each other, right? And there's no distance between them then, right? Well, if that is true, then the models in each check-marked diagrams are more than 2" away. If they were no more than 2" away from each other then their bases would overlap where the edges of those bases moved 2" closer to each other.

You continue to unintentionally reinforce my point. All your post illustrates is that it is undeniably clear that the authors of the game did not write the rules with a clear knowledge of mathematics and geometry. Hell, I'm pretty sure if I wrote a game I'd suffer the same fate.

So while you are correct that there techincally must be more than 2" between the bases in the coherency diagram, that diagram is an illustration to tell players how to play the game the authors wrote. And those illustrations throughout the book show that the authors use terms in a general way as used by the common public.

Again, I would say that if you asked 100 people if there was somethign wrong with the coherency diagram more than 90% of the people would not spot what you refer to. The reason for that is that most people, like myself and clearly like the authors of the game only have a passing understanding of geometry.

So if the authors have taken the time to create diagrams to illustrate their lack of knowledge of mathematics I cannot fathom why it is so hard for you to understand that they have at least done so in a consistent basis across the rules and it is a language that most people can understand.

It really is about consistency. All measuring aspects of the game are shown in both the diagrams and played by everyone I have ever met that if any part of a unit/model is within the specified distance then the entire model/unit is considered within that distance. It applies to coherency, shooting ranges, assault distances, close combat engagement distance, embarking/disembarking passenger range, etc, etc, etc.

As I have pointed out you will find no conclusive visual proof in the rulebook that your definition of "within" is the one shared by the authors, but the definition that I have been promoting is in line with how the rules and the diagrams are written.