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.

kirsanth wrote:

targetawg wrote:In 40k rules it's pretty commonly accepted (and I think even in the YMDC guidelines) that english/actual definitions of words aren't always equatable. In this case, the space something occupies is indeed it's size/area, because in the real world, that's true, it's just physics.

So, you are saying that the word "similar", since it is not defined jargon, should be ignored?

I think you are entirely missing the point of that guideline.

Actually, I'd suggest that you might be. But the debate of the RAI of the YMDC tenets is probably a matter for another thread.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Berserker used a dictionary definition to support his argument that "an area of difficult terrain of similar size" = "models occupy the area of their bases" because the space something occupies = its size in the english language. I was pointing out that this wasn't a suitable way to work through the RAW here. I then followed it up, under his assertion, with what his logical progression produced, a situation in which you have to enforce this for every skimmer, and since skimmers have flying bases, they now only occupy the area of their flying base, and only produce a crater of similar size.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Marshal_Gus wrote:

targetawg wrote:
Then we run into an impasse. All skimmers are supplied with bases. So the space a: land speeder storm, falcon, waveserpent, raider, ghost ark, devilfish, etc. occupies is = their base. Place an area of difficult terrain = the base. Disembark your models into it.

This is the point that convinces me. I'm not going to tell a Dark Eldar/Eldar/Necron player that they have to use their base to place their models. The interpretation is to use the hull for their guys disembarking from a transport that just exploded, so the same interpretation should be used for the Stormraven. Why would a Stormraven or Vendetta be different?

This is why we use craters.

A crater would be a fine solution, as the area of a GW crater is much larger then the oval. But the point I wanted to approach in this thread was that an exploded valkyrie or stormraven produced an area of difficult terrain exactly equal to the dimensions of its base.

If a crater is an acceptable solution by RAW, then the problem is already solved, because it's not the flight base oval.

targetawg wrote:Actually, I'd suggest that you might be.

Possible, but my original statement is true.

targetawg wrote:6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

You are blatantly misunderstanding incorrect about what "similar" means. So, no. You are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

targetawg wrote:If a crater is an acceptable solution by RAW, then the problem is already solved, because it's not the flight base oval.

It is. That is what I have been saying.

editing a blatantly wrong word.

kirsanth wrote:

targetawg wrote:Actually, I'd suggest that you might be.

Possible, but my original statement is true.

targetawg wrote:6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

You are blatantly misunderstanding incorrect about what "similar" means. So, no. You are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

targetawg wrote:If a crater is an acceptable solution by RAW, then the problem is already solved, because it's not the flight base oval.

It is. That is what I have been saying.

editing a blatantly wrong word.

Since you've decided to be rude (or ruder might be more correct) let's point out two things:

1) I was referring to Berserkers statement that size = space occupied originally, not the word similar. I was never once speaking about the definition of the word similar, you were.

2) The word similar means (yay we got to use definitions now!). The correct definition below is "of figures" since we're talking about the shape and outline of a physical object.

sim·i·lar/ˈsimələr/
Adjective:
Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.
(of figures) Having the same shape, with the same angles and proportions, though of different sizes.
Synonyms:
like - alike - analogous - equal - akin - kindred

So it appears I did (gasp) understand the meaning of the word similar, meaning that the crater should = the vehicles hull, approximately.

But do go on, I'm all ears for your next rude reply. Or you could just keep it civil, which I've tried to do, despite my many failings by your estimation, such as being "blatantly incorrect" "entirely missing the point" or you know, you could just make more contributions like "/shrug".

According to that definition, a scale crater that has a 1 inch area would work fine.
Edit: or did you miss the part about different sizes? That's what mathematically similar means.

You're the only one I see being rude, and not accepting that there is no RAW answer.

targetawg wrote:Since you've decided to be rude (or ruder might be more correct)

Pray tell. It seems that it is simply you mis-reading again.

targetawg wrote:let's point out two things:

2) The word similar means (yay we got to use definitions now!). The correct definition below is "of figures" since we're talking about the shape and outline of a physical object.

sim·i·lar/ˈsimələr/
Adjective:
Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.
(of figures) Having the same shape, with the same angles and proportions, though of different sizes.
Synonyms:
like - alike - analogous - equal - akin - kindred


But do go on, I'm all ears for your next rude reply.

And this is partly where you show a lack of understanding.

Similar area is what you are looking for - not figures, that is circular logic.

kronk wrote:How many people bring a crater the size of their storm raven or their vendettas to game night with them? <--- Honest question.

I have some card-stock cut-outs that are roughly the size of rhinos and land raiders that I bring with me when I play. Not great looking, but at least they're the right size.

Does anyone else do that?

I have and do. I bought a 11"x18" foam square (99 cents) and traced and cut.

Easily fitting in my troop carrier: A "template" shaped for each of my raiders and ravagers. I have a few rhino sized ones, a Land Raider, and joyfully, a StormRGunship template.


Here's a raider crater:

Brothererekose wrote:

kronk wrote:How many people bring a crater the size of their storm raven or their vendettas to game night with them? <--- Honest question.

I have some card-stock cut-outs that are roughly the size of rhinos and land raiders that I bring with me when I play. Not great looking, but at least they're the right size.

Does anyone else do that?

I have and do. I bought a 11"x18" foam square (99 cents) and traced and cut.

Spoiler:

Easily fitting in my troop carrier: A "template" shaped for each of my raiders and ravagers. I have a few rhino sized ones, a Land Raider, and joyfully, a StormRGunship template.


Here's a raider crater:

Good on you, sir!

Its the size of the GW crater you put under the oval base when it explodes. A TO can't debate with you using a standard GW crater. Bring 3 to 4 with you the same as you would immob/stunned/smoke markers.

Marshal_Gus wrote:

targetawg wrote:
Then we run into an impasse. All skimmers are supplied with bases. So the space a: land speeder storm, falcon, waveserpent, raider, ghost ark, devilfish, etc. occupies is = their base. Place an area of difficult terrain = the base. Disembark your models into it.

This is the point that convinces me. I'm not going to tell a Dark Eldar/Eldar/Necron player that they have to use their base to place their models. The interpretation is to use the hull for their guys disembarking from a transport that just exploded, so the same interpretation should be used for the Stormraven. Why would a Stormraven or Vendetta be different?

The thing is, skimmers and skimmers with large oval flying bases are now two distinct things because of faq's. Skimmers with large oval flying bases can end their move over models while normal skimmer cannot (referring to hull not their base).

Skimmer with large oval flying bases (I call them flimmers) were givin a break because of all the issues with terrain and other models so most of that was localized to theier base, like whether or not they count as being in terrain and so on. There's still no clear cut way of dealing with a valk or storm raven wreck. What happens to the dudes underneath the wings/other parts? It's not hard to find an amicable solution in a friendly game but in a tournament that's something TO might have to adress.

I think the simple fact that models disembark from the base of skimmers with large oval flying bases (flimmers) and models also move into base contact with he flying base for close combat is enough evidence that the most amicable and reasonable solution is for the crater to be the size of the base.

Anyway, I think the best solution is to include craters in your pre-game terrain discussion so that both players are on the same page. Because sadly the rules are so bad that nothing stops me from putting down one of these and calling it a crater. It's just rife for abuse.

I have to agree with most of what Targetawg has posted. There is no rules basis on which to think that the oval base of the flying stand or round base of the skimmer stand represent the vehicle's area. The rulebook is very clear, as were the 4th ed and 3rd ed books, that the skimmer is the size of its hull. Not of its base. And that you ignore the base except for a few limited and specified purposes. The big oval has MORE exceptions, but none of them change the area of the skimmer.

The guidelines for the terrain left behind from an exploded vehicle are reasonably clear as to area. A similar size to the exploded vehicle, at least to me and everyone I've ever played with in nine different US states means "as close to the area and shape of the vehicle's hull as can practicably be managed". Yes, if convenient we'll often throw in a round crater whose diameter is roughly the same as the length of a Rhino, which means it is too wide, technically, but we agree on that imprecision at the time or, if precision is agreed to be preferable or one person disagrees with the imprecises crater, we use dice or cut card or flat foam of the right size and shape.

Crablezworth has a point that the rules are unhelpufl as to height, but this is one of those areas where you can eaily tell when an opponent is taking the piss.

The one area of concern for me in this thread is the degree of flexibility in placement made possible by the giant hull of the Stormraven. The controlling player winds up with a lot of discretion about exactly where he wants to put his models. That being said, it's much the same as a small unit being placed in the creater of an exploded landraider. So rules-wise I don't see an issue with it.

Mannahnin wrote:I have to agree with most of what Targetawg has posted. There is no rules basis on which to think that the oval base of the flying stand or round base of the skimmer stand represent the vehicle's area. The rulebook is very clear, as were the 4th ed and 3rd ed books, that the skimmer is the size of its hull. Not of its base. And that you ignore the base except for a few limited and specified purposes. The big oval has MORE exceptions, but none of them change the area of the skimmer.

The guidelines for the terrain left behind from an exploded vehicle are reasonably clear as to area. A similar size to the exploded vehicle, at least to me and everyone I've ever played with in nine different US states means "as close to the area and shape of the vehicle's hull as can practicably be managed". Yes, if convenient we'll often throw in a round crater whose diameter is roughly the same as the length of a Rhino, which means it is too wide, technically, but we agree on that imprecision at the time or, if precision is agreed to be preferable or one person disagrees with the imprecises crater, we use dice or cut card or flat foam of the right size and shape.

Crablezworth has a point that the rules are unhelpufl as to height, but this is one of those areas where you can eaily tell when an opponent is taking the piss.

The one area of concern for me in this thread is the degree of flexibility in placement made possible by the giant hull of the Stormraven. The controlling player winds up with a lot of discretion about exactly where he wants to put his models. That being said, it's much the same as a small unit being placed in the creater of an exploded landraider. So rules-wise I don't see an issue with it.

While I'm not keen on joining this whole ridiculous debate, I'm gonna say I agree with Mannahnin's assessment of the situation. However, I do see a potential issue with using the huge size of the stormraven as the guideline for the terrain size.

Namely, models that assault the Stormraven will be in base contact with the stormraven's oval base. This means that if they cause an explosion result, the terrain can completely encompass the assaulting unit. Now that is not really an issue rules-wise (the models are suddenly in terrain, no big deal), but it's so rare an occurrence (since it's only possible with units mounted on large-oval-flying-bases) that many players may initially think it breaks the rules. Unexpected things like that lead to disputes. For example, in the given situation the terrain forces the unit that exploded the stormraven to move through difficult terrain (instead of allowing the unit to move around said terrain), possibly preventing it from assaulting a unit in the following turn. Now the player who assaulted the stormraven feels cheated because they expected to be able to avoid the remains of the stormraven. Alternatively, the assaulting unit would gain a cover save from standing in the terrain, making them more resistant to return fire. Now the stormraven player feels cheated because he was forced to give his opponent free cover without his opponent having to move into it. Are these scenarios likely? Not really. Possible? Yes.

With that in mind, it's worth discussing the issue with your opponent so nobody feels like the other player is trying to gain an unexpected or unfair advantage.

/2cents

Also, as to the thread title question: I try to use terrain that's similarly sized.