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.

I know it's 'old rules', but there is a scenario in the latest chapter approved book. They define the 24" as saying that weapons with 24" range would be out of range.

And that makes perfect sense.

If something were at EXACTLY 24", and a weapon's range is 24", to the naked eye, it looks like you missed. The tape measure will EXACTLY meet the edge of the target's base (or hull, or whatever) looks like a miss. You must be WITHIN range to be affected. Within (there's that word again) means inside the limit. The limit is 24", so you must be inside it to be affected.

Horse hockey. "Not within" would not have included 24" in any word problem I've ever had to work.
Look at the darned dictionary entry I quoted. Within means inside limit. Not inclusive. It's everything inside the limit, including the infinitesimally small fraction just below the limit.

That's my bad, as the wording of the rule is different then 'not within':

"cannot deploy within 24" of the enemy"

The definition you quoted doesn't mention 'inlcusive' at all. The most pertinent one says: Inside the fixed limits of; not beyond: lived within her income

So if her income was $2000, then spending $2000 is living within her income as 2000 is her limit.

Is exactly 24" beyond the limit of 24"'? No. I don't see how you can prove otherwise, certainly not based on the english language (feel free to check the definition of limit) and not on the authority of your dear old grade school teacher. It is true that the definition of a limit in calculus does fit your definition but this isn't calculus.

Anyways, I do consent that it is more ambiguous then it first appeared to me and i fully understand your stance. However, the necessity of having an impossibly percise measurement in order to deploy exactly 24" makes your point moot anyways. As I said before, it is on us to not take advantage of our impercise measurements. You try to pull that extact 24" deployement and charge on me and I'll ask for a validation of your measurement ability with a tape measure within atleast .001 inches of accuracy.

You must be WITHIN range to be affected. Within (there's that word again) means inside the limit. The limit is 24", so you must be inside it to be affected.

Except that the rules for checking range don't ask for the target to be 'within' the weapon's range.

They instead state that the target is out of range if it is 'beyond' the weapon's maximum range.


So if your weapon has a 24" range, the target is only out of range if it is more than 24" away.


For assaulting, though, you need to be within your assault range.

Go figure.

However, the necessity of having an impossibly percise measurement in order to deploy exactly 24" makes your point moot anyways. As I said before, it is on us to not take advantage of our impercise measurements. You try to pull that extact 24" deployement and charge on me and I'll ask for a validation of your measurement ability with a tape measure within atleast .001 inches of accuracy.

Oh, I would never actually try to pull this crap on someone... I just looked at it more as a theoretical exercise.  Yeah, it's possible... but highly improbible.

My personal favorite moment reminiscint of this, happened a few years ago (back in 3rd ed.) in a campaign game.  My opponent whined that I deployed my deathwing terminators in a land raider too close to his kroot unit (Dark Eldar with kroot mercenaries).  The exchange went something like this.

Him:  "You can't deploy 24" away."

Me:  (Really not caring either way, I reached for my land raider and nudged it a fraction of an inch away from the unit and said)... "There, satisfied?"

 

He lost horribly, and it didn't matter 1 little bit.

Kevin is correct- the rules use "within" to mean "exactly at or within". "Within range", or "within coherency" are common operative phrases. If you are exactly at the distance, you are within reach. Thus deploying exactly at the distance is illegal.

I was very happy to see the phrasing in 4th ed for deployment and for infiltrate, because it made clear that the first turn assault cannot happen except for units with rules to give them extra speed, which thankfully are in the minority. If a DE player wants to position for first-turn with his Raiders, he's usually not making best use of terrain, and if I get first turn he will deeply regret his choice.

Well I know it doesn't matter much but I believe one of the fastest things on the market, is the demon prince with a demonic steed, and demonic flight (strangely enough this is legal).

For the record...

Shrikes Wing,  Chaos Deamon Princes,  Khorn Possessed and Dark Eldar can all potentially assault first turn.

-Legacy40k

Oops we forgot one, 1st turn charge by Kroot Mercenaries Blood of the Stalker, Hyper Nimune Organ, hell sometimes its possible to charge someone with normal Kroot. . .

13th company fenrisian wolves can make a first turn charge as well.

Well I know it doesn't matter much but I believe one of the fastest things on the market, is the demon prince with a demonic steed, and demonic flight (strangely enough this is legal).

IIRC, it is legal to take both but not legal to use both in the same turn. I'll try to find a reference but this might be 4ed quirk I'm not aware of.