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.

generaly we outline the transport with dice than place them in the boundaries treating the cube as difficult terrain

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The "area of the base (note: please learn what area means) needs to be where the vehicle used to be"

Where's this quote from?

He wont be able to provide you with a quote because it doesn't exist. However the summary of the rules he is referencing holds merit.

On pg 3, a model is defined to occupy the area of its base.

So when it tells you to place the survivors, aka models, where the vehicle used to be, he is pointing out that you can only do that by placing the base inside that area. In otherwords, it is defined that the entire base is the model and only partially placing it is not placing the model as directed.

My argument does not so much address the survivors, but what is defined as where the vehicle used to be.

If a model occupies the area of its base, where the vehicle used to be is very clear cut. It is a proverbial line in the sand. When you are directed to place the survivors where the vehicles used to be, it has to be within the area that was accupied by the base of the vehicle.

So if you place .001 of a survivor where the vehicle used to be, you have .999 of the model NOT where the vehicle used to be. RAW the rule does not mention partially placing the model where the vehicle used to be at all. So you are not placing the survivors as directed into the area the vehicle used to be as defined by the BRB. You are partially placing it where it used to be but are also partially placing it where it never was. That is not the directions given to you as RAW.

As has been mentioned several times in this forum with other situations, "it doesn't say I can't partially place them where the vehicle used to be" wont stand up as an argument.

Brother Ramses wrote:I think I am going to pick up some felt from the fabric store, cut out several vehicle shapes, and that will be the standard for craters I bring to the gaming table.

Good idea. So, Wave Serpent, Devilfish (gonna need *lots* of those ), Land Raider, *sigh* rhino ...

Try fitting 20 Ork boys entirely within the area of an exploded battlewagon. No chance.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The "area of the base (note: please learn what area means) needs to be where the vehicle used to be"

Where's this quote from?

From my earlier post

here it is.

DeathReaper wrote:

P.3 measuring distances "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be

The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be, ergo the area of the base needs to be *entirely* within the foot print.

if a part of the area of the base is not where the vehicle used to be, then you have broken a rule.

He didn't ask you to quote yourself, he asked you to quote the rulebook. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say the entire "area of the base" needs to be within the footprint of the vehicle. Nowhere.

You're still making things up.

Stop adding rules where there are none.

Until you can point to the rulebook (post a picture, please, your "quotes" from the rulebook are simply not accurate) and show me where the word "entirely" appears, your point is not valid.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

SaintHazard wrote:we'll wait.

im not going to wait im going to convert marneus calgard


In all seriousness, I myself am not too sure on what he should have done with his 'zerkers. I will read this and find out myself.

Regardless of what all of your definition of "where the vehicle use to be" is, the op might still have gotten hosed badly. If it was the side of a rhino and the zerker squad suffered casualties AND assuming the chaos player decided to use this interpretation of the rules specifically, he could have only put around 5-6 like that, and only in a straight line. Excess models couldnt be placed behind those, as that would mean they're no longer under the footprint of the vehicle at all.

SaintHazard wrote:He didn't ask you to quote yourself, he asked you to quote the rulebook. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say the entire "area of the base" needs to be within the footprint of the vehicle. Nowhere.

You're still making things up.

Stop adding rules where there are none.

Until you can point to the rulebook (post a picture, please, your "quotes" from the rulebook are simply not accurate) and show me where the word "entirely" appears, your point is not valid.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Here are your rulebook quotes:

P.3 measuring distances "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

p.67 Destroyed -- explodes!
"The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"

Surviving passengers = Model = area of the base,

therefore, Straight out of the rules, The area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be

Now we have to look at the footprint of the model, this is, after all, where the vehicle used to be.

Models are placed in this footprint so the area of the base is placed in this footprint.

The area of a 1" base is 0.785 and that area needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

So 0.785 of the base needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

nothing made up, all right out of the rules.

Please, if i have made any of this up, let me know what i have made up. Because I am just taking this from the rules.

DeathReaper wrote:
Please, if i have made any of this up, let me know what i have made up. Because I am just taking this from the rules.

Still not seeing "entirely within" in there anywhere.

I'd have to agree with Deathreaper on this one. What Nos and Sainthazard are describing sounds more like disembarking. The rules do say that the models have to be placed "where the vehicle used to be". To me, that means that the outer borders of the vehicle are the outer borders of where models can be placed. He's not making anything up. If only 1% of the models base area (0.785 square inches is inside this perimeter, the other 99% of the model is not where the vehicle used to be. There isn't a rule I've seen quoted that says what portion of the base needs to be inside in order to satisfy the rule. So it falls into a gray area that needs to be agreed upon with your opponent what is actually meant AT BEST.
Strictly RAW, they have to be where the vehicle was.

The only really valid counterpoint that made me think was the example of 20 orks inside a battlewagon. My battlewagon measures 4 inches by 6 inches, yours may be more. Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.
So theres no reason some beserkers couldn't make it in the hole left by the vehicle exploding. Unless of course they're just trying to WAAC. In which case I usually take it as a compliment, as my army has obviously caused enough pants-browning to warrant this kind of calling all technicalities behavior.
In any event I'd just call it a day at this point Deathreaper. Theres no way these guys will admit defeat, because there isn't a definative rule either way, and my personal experience is you'll only keep quoting legitimate rules to have them claim that your interpretation is 'making gak up'. Even though theirs is also making stuff up, simply because there isnt a quotable rule for what percentage of the models base needs to be in to qualify. Its something you need to work out with your opponent, and if you cant work things out with someone, odds are they're not exactly the friends making type.
Just cite the rulebook for what you know in your FLGS and if you play there often enough without being an asshat (spending money also helps from a store owner perspective, and usually their say is final, at least in that store), your being able to quote the rules is about as good as it gets.

Doomthumbs wrote:~Snip

You realise you just said circles tessellate?

No, I just said that there is enough total square area there to justify it. I realize circles are... circles. Sadly there is no such thing as inches circled.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Please, if i have made any of this up, let me know what i have made up. Because I am just taking this from the rules.

Still not seeing "entirely within" in there anywhere.

0.785 of the base needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

the area of the base takes up 0.785 inches squared. That area is what has to be where the vehicle used to be. If any part of it is not where the vehicle used to be, then it is an illegal placement.

the area of the base is placed where the vehicle used to be (not it does not allow for you to be partially where the vehicle used to be because part of the base would not be where the vehicle used to be.)

Look at the diagram.

The area of the base on base A is not where the vehicle used to be. (this area of the base is only partially where the vehicle used to be) it does not allow you to be partially where the vehicle used to be, therefore this is an incorrect placement.

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

Thats some fine microsoft painting my friend.
As for the point of it doesnt say "entirely", I don't believe there is a rule that can be quoted to be that covers the partially in and partially out as being legal.
Its just a standard convention, which is to say that anything but totally within where the vehicle used to be is

nosferatu1001 wrote:"making stuff up".

Doomthumbs wrote:No, I just said that there is enough total square area there to justify it. I realize circles are... circles. Sadly there is no such thing as inches circled.

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

So you're going to fit 30 and a half boys on 1" bases into a 6"x4" area?...have fun.

Sure. Theres enough square area there to add up.
But since the transport limit is 20, and there are 24 square inches there (each square inch which perfectly capable of containing a 1"diameter circle plus trim) I see no reason why I couldn't "have fun".

Do you? (Barring of course people baiting me in an online forum, but thats more of an irritation than an actual barrier to my fun.)

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:
You realise you just said circles tessellate?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you don't mean to say something then don't say it.

So you've said. I can read.

The transport limit on a battlewagon is? Still 20. So with 24"^2, that leaves room for 4 more 'real space' orks than can actually fit in there.

or 30.5 if you want to fully utilize your imagination and WMS.

Edit: Any way you slice it, my urine is still being projected way further than yours in this scenario.

Doomthumbs wrote:So you've said. I can read.

The transport limit on a battlewagon is? Still 20. So with 24"^2, that leaves room for 4 more 'real space' orks than can actually fit in there.

Okay, now fit 11 boyz and a large-based IC completely within the 2x2 footprint of a last edition ork trukk.

ChrisCP wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote:No, I just said that there is enough total square area there to justify it. I realize circles are... circles. Sadly there is no such thing as inches circled.

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

So you're going to fit 30 and a half boys on 1" bases into a 6"x4" area?...have fun.

nah last I checked the trukk can't Hold 30

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

nah last I checked the trukk can't Hold 30

Gorkamorka wrote:Okay, now fit 11 boyz and a large-based IC completely within the 2x2 footprint of a last edition ork trukk.

Thankfully, I don't have to. I play Nids, and I use the latest edition stuff. Keeps my FLGS store owner happy.
Only notable exception are my space hulk era carnifexen, because of the cool "mouth within a mouth" thing they have goin' on. Makes up for the fact that they're just a little bigger than my hive guard.

Edit: Yes, I AM well aware that there is no way to take more than 20 orks in a battlewagon. "30.5" is just 24/0.785. Stop quoting that like I'm trying to take 30.5 orcs, because thats not whats going on here. That number is cited for pure 'wow, yeah theres DEFINATELY space for 20' purposes only.
Who takes half an ork, anyway?

Doomthumbs wrote:
My battlewagon measures 4 inches by 6 inches, yours may be more.
...
I play Nids, and I use the latest edition stuff.

Now I'm just confused.

doomthumbs wrote:
Edit: Any way you slice it, my urine is still being projected way further than yours in this scenario.

Real classy, considering you were wrong in any practical sense.

Gorkamorka wrote:Now I'm just confused.

You shouldnt be... I totally take my Trygons in vendettas, almost every time. And I embark my doom of malantai in a landraider, so his effect gets to be measured from the hull like a mek's KFF. So why not use battlewagons for my genestealers?

Oh, wait. No, as a rational non cheater, the only way I can play nids AND have a battlewagon would be either:
a) I play orks as well, occasionally (this is the actual option)
b) Genestealer cult orks. (What I'd like to convert, maybe, prolly not)

All that other stuff, I did make up. You can quote me on that. I totally make stuff up occasionally.

Edit: How am I wrong in ANY practical sense that 20 orks fit in a 24"^2 space?
Hint: I'm not.

Doomthumbs wrote:
Edit: How am I wrong in ANY practical sense that 20 orks fit in a 24"^2 space?
Hint: I'm not.

Changing your argument from "thats enough space for 30 and a half boys." when it was pointed out you were wrong doesn't suddenly mean you were right all along.
Hint: It's not enough space for 30 and a half boyz, no matter how you arrange them. Since if we're using boyz as you specified, they are on circular bases... and circles don't tessellate, as has been pointed out.

Edit:
"or 30.5 if you want to fully utilize your imagination and WMS."
Hint: Other models are impassable terrain, and the rules state "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain". Wrong again.

Uh huh..
I'm not changing anything. Again, 30.5 is just the number you get if you divide 24 by 0.785. Nothing else. I even said that it only worked using WMS and "Imagination". Quote me where it says I have to have the base flat on the table, since you're keen to go that route.

20 is the max number of orks in a battlewagon.
24 is the max that can fit into a 4"x6" area. 24 is also 4 more than 20.
So yes, 20 orks CAN fit in the crater of a battlewagon (my original statement).
Since I've never said anything to the contrary, how am I changing anything?
Hint: I'm not.

Since you aren't asking questions, why am I being provided with a hint as to the answer of a nonexistant question?
Hint: Some people are denser than neutron stars.

Doomthumbs wrote: Thats 24 square inches. Divided by the 0.785 square inches of a 1" base (Pi times the radius squared), thats enough space for 30 and a half boys. Seems like more than enough.

General Fuzzum wrote:1. It is definitely up to the player to determine whether or not a piece of terrain is "area terrain"; this goes for a crater.

Craters are in the list of terrain items that the rules mention in the "not area terrain" category, the reason being that they have a defined edge. Though it should be noted that while ruins, as sold by GW, have a defined edge, they are specifically defined as area terrain.

General Fuzzum wrote:
2. The word "inside" is totally up for debate. If you have one foot inside a house, and the other on the sidewalk, you are both inside and not inside the house.

I think most people would say you have a foot inside the house. It is a very artificial situation, like when you go to the Greenwich Meridian and stand astride the line so you can be half in the east and half in the west at the same time.

No-one says they are out of the swimming pool when they are swimming around with their head out of the water

General Fuzzum wrote:
3. As is the classic case of this forum, just because something isn't mentioned in the rules as being explicitly forbidden, doesn't mean that it is acceptable.

Indeed.

@Nosferatu -- You assume a requirement that the rules need to say "entirely within" in order to justify something being "in" a position when it is 99% outside of it.

The rules are too ill defined to allow of this degree of discrimination.

Which was the point - the rules make no requirement to be entirely within, so if you can measure to the models base, and measure to show that it is inside the footprint, according to the rules you ARE placed within the footprint. Its under the rules for measuring to models.

DR - you have still made up a requirement to be entirely within, and keep repeating the same argument frmo the last thread which was proven wrong. I have already proven you wrong, again, in this thread.