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.

Again, you using only part of rules to justify your argument. The rules for range detail measurement is base-to-base. Also, the rules for cover save describe what is meant for "in cover". However, this definition isn't described as being a general definition of "within cover".

Further, the Ymargl deployment rule DOESN'T state the models are deployed within in terrain as if in cover. The rule only states the models must be deployed within cover.

The issue isn't whether the models get cover or that there is an advantage to deploying around the edge of the terrain. The issue is about being able to deploy all the models. If a model cannot be deployed within the terrian it is lost. Deploying the model next to terrain, while in terrain for purposes of movement and cover, is not the same as deploying the model within terrain.

 TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Again, you using only part of rules to justify your argument. The rules for range detail measurement is base-to-base. Also, the rules for cover save describe what is meant for "in cover". However, this definition isn't described as being a general definition of "within cover".

So you're saying the definition of "within" and "in" are not the same?

Further, the Ymargl deployment rule DOESN'T state the models are deployed within in terrain as if in cover. The rule only states the models must be deployed within cover.

It actually says within terrain. And I never said it did. I said that the requirements for their deployment and the requirement to receive a cover save are the same.

The issue isn't whether the models get cover or that there is an advantage to deploying around the edge of the terrain. The issue is about being able to deploy all the models. If a model cannot be deployed within the terrian it is lost. Deploying the model next to terrain, while in terrain for purposes of movement and cover, is not the same as deploying the model within terrain.

Please cite the difference between "within" and "in" or "inside".

TGA:

Nobody's talking about deploying models next to terrain, we're talking about deploying the model at least a tiny bit within the terrain, which is completely consistent with how the term 'within' is used throughout the rest of the rules.

 yakface wrote:

TGA:

Nobody's talking about deploying models next to terrain, we're talking about deploying the model at least a tiny bit within the terrain, which is completely consistent with how the term 'within' is used throughout the rest of the rules.

Next to, i.e. base is touching the edge, of terrain is perfectly acceptable to determine a model is IN terrain for purposes of cover and movement per the respective rules. Neither rule describes being applicatable to general purpose uses.

The distinction between "in" and "within" is, in general, "within" implies a more restrictive containment. As a previous example showed, if I have one foot out of a house and one foot in the house I'm in the house by not within the house. If both feet are in the house I'm within the house.

Again, the Ymgarl rule doesn't expand on the use of "within", it doesn't state "like cover" or "like movement" just "within terrain". Given the Ymgarl rule doesn't expiciltly define the use of "within" as does the other rules cited, we're left with the general use of within, contained.

 TheGreatAvatar wrote:

 yakface wrote:

TGA:

Nobody's talking about deploying models next to terrain, we're talking about deploying the model at least a tiny bit within the terrain, which is completely consistent with how the term 'within' is used throughout the rest of the rules.

Next to, i.e. base is touching the edge, of terrain is perfectly acceptable to determine a model is IN terrain for purposes of cover and movement per the respective rules. Neither rule describes being applicatable to general purpose uses.

The distinction between "in" and "within" is, in general, "within" implies a more restrictive containment. As a previous example showed, if I have one foot out of a house and one foot in the house I'm in the house by not within the house. If both feet are in the house I'm within the house.

Again, the Ymgarl rule doesn't expand on the use of "within", it doesn't state "like cover" or "like movement" just "within terrain". Given the Ymgarl rule doesn't expiciltly define the use of "within" as does the other rules cited, we're left with the general use of within, contained.

Actually if you have one foot in the house you can be considered in the house...certainly by all legal standings.

But more importantly, the rules for 40k consistently use the term within to represent ANY part of the unit/model being within that area. When they want to force you to have whole model within that area, they use the term 'wholly' or 'entirely' within.

So the question is, why do you seem to think this is the one case where consistency should get tossed out the window and be handled differently?

Can you cite some cases where GW says a unit must be wholly or entirely within terrain?

 yakface wrote:

Actually if you have one foot in the house you can be considered in the house...certainly by all legal standings.

Yes, but we're not talking about being IN the house/terrain we are talking about being WITHIN the house/terrain.

But more importantly, the rules for 40k consistently use the term within to represent ANY part of the unit/model being within that area. When they want to force you to have whole model within that area, they use the term 'wholly' or 'entirely' within.

So the question is, why do you seem to think this is the one case where consistency should get tossed out the window and be handled differently?

I disagreed. The rules for 40k consistently point out the when b2b is called out and when it isn't. Movement, coherency, and cover all detail by text and example the range is measured b2b and the RANGE is within a certain value. Further, several of the rules detail what is meant by being IN terrain including just merely touching the terrain being enough.

The Ymgarl rule could have just as easily have stated the models must be deployed IN terrain but didn't. A more restrictive term is used: WITHIN.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Can you cite some cases where GW says a unit must be wholly or entirely within terrain?

There are none, and that's not my point.

My point is, that we do have absolute concrete examples in the rules of what being 'within' something else is, and it most definitely refers to any portion of a model/unit (range and disembarking, to name two instances).

Then we have quite a few instances where the rules actually say that something has to be 'entirely' or 'wholly' within, letting us know that in those cases, you have to have the entire model/unit within that specified distance.

So again, why would anyone try to make the assumption that we're supposed to throw this consistency out the window and assume that in this case only 'within' suddenly means 'entirely within'?

It just makes no logical sense.


And here's a list of the 'entirely' and 'wholly' references:

Pg 4: Range example showing SM unit wholly within 8" of Ork Trukk.
Pg 33: Blast holes must be entirely over the base of the target model.
Pg 41: Scout redeploys must be entirely within 6"/12".
Pg 79: Disembarking must be wholly within 6".
Pg 80: Disembarking from a wreck must be wholly within 3".
Pg 95: Leaping Down off a building must be wholly within 3".
Pg 120: Fortifications must be set up wholly within the player's table half.
Pg 121: Deploying units in a fortification must be wholly within a player's table half.


So again I claim that the rules for 40K are consistent on this topic and that within always means partially within and when they want to say entirely within they actually say 'entirely' or 'wholly' within.

To try to suddenly guess when 'within' is randomly supposed to mean 'entirely within' is just madness.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Yes, but we're not talking about being IN the house/terrain we are talking about being WITHIN the house/terrain.

Yeah, I'm talking about being WITHIN The house. If you put one foot within a house, you are both in the house, within the house, on their property and the owner would have legal grounds to shoot you, despite the fact that your other foot may be off their property, outside their house and out of their house.

In and within are synonyms - neither is more restrictive than the other.

Those are pretty good examples to support your case.

If the rule for Ymargls did not mention the 'inside' I would take it as you can deploy with part of the base touching the terrain, below is the defination of inside from google,


in·side
/ˈinˈsīd/
Noun
The inner side or surface of a thing.
Adjective
Situated on or in, or derived from, the inside: "an inside pocket".
Preposition
Situated within the confines of (something).

So you're saying "inside" means something different than "in" or "within"?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're saying "inside" means something different than "in" or "within"?

the rules say what within means, they do not say what inside means, so we take the dictionary definition of it, and we find that "Inside" and "Within" are to different definitions as far as 40K is concerned.

"Within" and "in" a given distance are used consistently within the 40k rules, to mean that at least part of the base (or model, for non-based vehicles) is within a given distance or area.

"Wholly within" and "entirely within" are different, and mean the entire base has to be inside.

 Mannahnin wrote:
"Within" and "in" a given distance are used consistently within the 40k rules, to mean that at least part of the base (or model, for non-based vehicles) is within a given distance or area.

"Wholly within" and "entirely within" are different, and mean the entire base has to be inside.

Agreed. The rules state consistantly within a DISTANCE. The deployment rule for the Ymgarl does not state within a distance, the rule states within an area, in this case terrain. Within used as inclusive meaning contained.

In each rule sited so far, the measurement of distance is base-to-base or base-to-edge and said measurement was to be within a certain value. The Ymgarl rule does NOT make such a distinction. The only rule used is the model must be within the terrain. Given that, the issue is what does within mean? The rules are not clear about this, i.e., there is no rule defining "within" in the BRB. Yes, there are rules that augment "within" but none that define it.

A simple definition of within (yes, I know, I'm using a dictionary but there appears to be some confusion of its defintion)
with·in (w-n, wth-)
adv.
1. In or into the inner part; inside.
2. Inside the mind, heart, or soul; inwardly.
prep.
1. In the inner part or parts of; inside: resentment seething within him.
2.
a. Inside the limits or extent of in time or distance: arrived within two days; stayed within earshot; within ten miles of home.
b. Inside the fixed limits of; not beyond: lived within her income.
c. In the scope or sphere of: acted within the law; within the medical profession.
d. Inside a specified amount or degree: The team had pulled to within five points of winning.
n.
An inner position, place, or area: treachery from within.


Defintion of in:
in 1 (n)
prep.
1.
a. Within the limits, bounds, or area of: was hit in the face; born in the spring; a chair in the garden.
b. From the outside to a point within; into: threw the letter in the wastebasket.
2. To or at a situation or condition of: was split in two; in debt; a woman in love.
3.
a. Having the activity, occupation, or function of: a life in politics; the officer in command.
b. During the act or process of: tripped in racing for the bus.
4.
a. With the arrangement or order of: fabric that fell in luxuriant folds; arranged to purchase the car in equal payments.
b. After the style or form of: a poem in iambic pentameter.
5. With the characteristic, attribute, or property of: a tall man in an overcoat.
6.
a. By means of: paid in cash.
b. Made with or through the medium of: a statue in bronze; a note written in German.
7. With the aim or purpose of: followed in pursuit.
8. With reference to: six inches in depth; has faith in your judgment.
9. Used to indicate the second and larger term of a ratio or proportion: saved only one in ten.
adv.
1. To or toward the inside: opened the door and stepped in.
2. To or toward a destination or goal: The mob closed in.
3. Sports So as to score, as by crossing home plate in baseball: singled the runner in.
4. Within a place, as of business or residence: The manager is in before anyone else.
5. So as to be available or under one's control: We can proceed when all the evidence is in.
6. So as to include or incorporate: Fold in the egg whites.
7. So as to occupy a position of success or favor: campaigned hard and was voted in.
8. In a particular relationship: got in bad with their supervisor.
adj.
1. Located inside; inner.
2. Incoming; inward: took the in bus.
3. Holding office; having power: the in party.
4. Informal
a. Currently fashionable: the in thing to wear this season.
b. Concerned with or attuned to the latest fashions: the in crowd. See Synonyms at fashionable.
5. Relating to, understandable to, or coming from an exclusive group: an in reference.
n.
1. One that has position, influence, or power: the ins against the outs.
2. Informal Influence; power: had an in with the authorities.
Idioms:
in for
Guaranteed to get or have: You're in for a big surprise.
in on
Informed about; participating in: Only one business partner was not in on the illegal scheme.
in that
For the reason that.


So, similar but yet a bit different. Both imply containment yet within seems to force this issue more.

Let me ask a question using an example:

O - Ork
Y - Ymgarl
T - Terrain

There is a tactical piece of terrain the Orks move to occupy it. The Ymgarl are to deploy into the terrain.

YYY
YTTTTTTT
Y T O O TT
Y TT O O O TTT
YT O O O TT
YTT O O O TTT
Y TTTTTTTTTT
Y


The Orks have moved into the terrain such the models are just a little over an inch from the edge of the terrain such the Ymgarls cannot deploy directly in the terrain. Based on the above discussion related to cover and movement, the Ymgarls' can deploy outside the terrain and just touch the edge of the terrain.

Is this a valid deployment of the Ymgarls?

I think within means any part as with monstrous creatures.

I don't use Ymargls b/c they are too costly and take up an elite slot, so unless it is a game just for fun why would you clearly cause a problem over an issue that could go either way? In a tourney I might argue it but I really think within means at all touching and I bet the judge would rule the same way.

 TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Agreed. The rules state consistantly within a DISTANCE. The deployment rule for the Ymgarl does not state within a distance, the rule states within an area, in this case terrain. Within used as inclusive meaning contained.

In each rule sited so far, the measurement of distance is base-to-base or base-to-edge and said measurement was to be within a certain value. The Ymgarl rule does NOT make such a distinction. The only rule used is the model must be within the terrain. Given that, the issue is what does within mean? The rules are not clear about this, i.e., there is no rule defining "within" in the BRB. Yes, there are rules that augment "within" but none that define it.

And yet, that is the *only* consistent use of the term for the game, including how it makes sense for units to be in/within cover for the purposes of cover saves, etc.

So basically you're saying that even though every instance of the term 'within' in the rules that is clearly defined actually expresses 'partially within', somehow in certain instances that only you are able to divine this actually means 'wholly within'?

Again, there is absolutely NO concrete example in the rules (that I'm aware) of where 'within' on its own is used to indicate that the entire model or unit MUST be wholly within the specified area. As soon as you find such examples then at least you have established some cause for others to accept your claim...but until then, you're literally talking about throwing consistency out of the window on no real standing.

Let me ask a question using an example:

O - Ork
Y - Ymgarl
T - Terrain

There is a tactical piece of terrain the Orks move to occupy it. The Ymgarl are to deploy into the terrain.

YYY
YTTTTTTT
Y T O O TT
Y TT O O O TTT
YT O O O TT
YTT O O O TTT
Y TTTTTTTTTT
Y


The Orks have moved into the terrain such the models are just a little over an inch from the edge of the terrain such the Ymgarls cannot deploy directly in the terrain. Based on the above discussion related to cover and movement, the Ymgarls' can deploy outside the terrain and just touch the edge of the terrain.

Is this a valid deployment of the Ymgarls?

Touching the edge of the terrain isn't enough, as it isn't good enough for models to claim a cover save from area terrain...each model must have at least a tiny sliver of their base within the terrain to qualify.

But yes, the example in general works just fine and is actually precisely how Ymgarls have pounced on me in the past (and even when I was playing Orks, funnily enough).

The thing about this situation is that as the opposing player you know the Ymgarls are coming and they have to come from area terrain. So if you're going to occupy a terrain feature you have to know if you have enough models to truly prevent the Ymgarls from deploying. But even if there is a small sliver open for them to deploy in without coming within 1", you still know that any Ymgarls that can't be placed are killed, so even if you're able to auto-kill a few of them this way you have to consider it a victory.

I love these "Is the glass half empty of half full" type of questions. get a TO to rule it what I'd do, as opposed to getting pissed off at each other over a question you can't answer

Dezstiny wrote:
I love these "Is the glass half empty of half full" type of questions.

This isn't my glass. Mine was bigger. And it was full. Barkeep make it a Double.

Dezstiny wrote:
I love these "Is the glass half empty of half full" type of questions. get a TO to rule it what I'd do, as opposed to getting pissed off at each other over a question you can't answer

But this isn't really that situation. This situation is one where the rules consistently tell us to call the glass half full, yet in this one particular situation someone is saying, no we should ignore that consistency and instead call the glass half empty, but just in this one case because I say so.

 yakface wrote:

Dezstiny wrote:
I love these "Is the glass half empty of half full" type of questions. get a TO to rule it what I'd do, as opposed to getting pissed off at each other over a question you can't answer

But this isn't really that situation. This situation is one where the rules consistently tell us to call the glass half full, yet in this one particular situation someone is saying, no we should ignore that consistency and instead call the glass half empty, but just in this one case because I say so.

Indeed, and we even have a definition for "wholly within", which is what TGA is trying to claim is the case here.

"within" is satisfied by 1/64" being inside the terrain.