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.

wtnind wrote:
You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as). Incidentally you are now asserting that the ENTIRE base has to be within it, which is a change from your original post (which mentioned majority).

Here is a question, "If 2 models overlap, are they occupying the same space?"

I have always asserted that the entire base needs to be where the vehicle used to be, because that is how the rules are written. (Re-read my original post, I never mentioned that partial base was okay).

P.S. 2 models can never overlap.

If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?

wtnind wrote:

If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?

Read that again carefully, that does not say what you think it says...

How can you have a model where the vehicle was if it is on the board where the transport was not touching?

 DeathReaper wrote:

wtnind wrote:

If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?

Read that again carefully, that does not say what you think it says...

Whatever.

It comes down to this:

If part of a models base overlaps the location where another model used to be, has that model been placed where another model used to be? I say yes, you say no.

Your not going to change my opinion on the matter, im not going to change yours and I'm fine to leave it at that.

wtnind wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

wtnind wrote:

If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?

Read that again carefully, that does not say what you think it says...

Whatever.

It comes down to this:

If part of a models base overlaps the location where another model used to be, has that model been placed where another model used to be? I say yes, you say no.

Your not going to change my opinion on the matter, im not going to change yours and I'm fine to leave it at that.

Well is the model where the vehicle used to be?

If any part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be then you can not in good faith answer Yes to that question.

Bottom line is, your argument is incorrect, because clearly a part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, and is clearly breaking a rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Bottom line is, your argument is incorrect, because clearly a part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, and is clearly breaking a rule.

I refer you to my previous post

Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.

Can the same not be said for having models on the board where the model was not touching the board? Are they hovering in the air in the case of transports that are on flight bases? Are they on the board in any other place then where the treads on the tanks were? All of these things are acceptable where being outside of the footprint is not?

 Jimsolo wrote:
Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.

No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'

Therefore you can only place a model where the vehicle used to be and may not place the model where the vehicle was not.

In the diagram I posted, #1 and #2 are where the vehicle used to be, #3 is partially where the vehicle used to be, but it is also partially where the vehicle was not, and as such breaks the rule.

wtnind wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Bottom line is, your argument is incorrect, because clearly a part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be, and is clearly breaking a rule.

I refer you to my previous post

Which is still an incorrect argument.

Where the vehicle used to be, excludes where the vehicle was not.

Your method advocates placing part of the model where the vehicle was not and as such breaks a rule.

The base is a part of the model. If part of the base is not where the vehicle used to be (Note the model has to be where the vehicle used to be) then part of the model is not where the vehicle used to be,a nd that breaks a rule because the model needs to be where the vehicle used to be.

So does a model Deep Striking have to be all the way within 6" of a Locator Beacon to gain the benefit?

Does a model have to have its entire base within 12" of a Blessing with a twelve inch range to be affected?

Is a model whose base edge is 5.5 inches away from an Archon with the Armor of Misery immune to it?

I see what you're saying, and it might even make sense, I just can't think of a single other example that works that way unless explicitly stated.

 Jimsolo wrote:
So does a model Deep Striking have to be all the way within 6" of a Locator Beacon to gain the benefit?

Why would it, that's measuring, which is clear on how you handle unis within X inches of one another...

Does a model have to have its entire base within 12" of a Blessing with a twelve inch range to be affected?

Why would it, that's measuring, which is clear on how you handle unis within X inches of one another...

Is a model whose base edge is 5.5 inches away from an Archon with the Armor of Misery immune to it?

Why would it, that's measuring, which is clear on how you handle unis within X inches of one another...

I see what you're saying, and it might even make sense, I just can't think of a single other example that works that way unless explicitly stated.

Except all those deal with measuring between units, this situation is totally different because we are not dealing with measuring between unis, since there is only one unit involved. The vehicle is no longer a unit, nor is it even on the table anymore.

'Put this thing inside a space bounded by this shape' seems like measuring to me.

In any event, it sure seems more reasonable to approach it like conventional measuring than trying to assign some other way to do it which is not spelled out explicitly. Otherwise vehicles with unusual shapes like Venoms, Wave Serpents, Ghost Arks, and the Tantalus become absolutely absurd.

 Jimsolo wrote:
'Put this thing inside a space bounded by this shape' seems like measuring to me.

In any event, it sure seems more reasonable to approach it like conventional measuring than trying to assign some other way to do it which is not spelled out explicitly. Otherwise vehicles with unusual shapes like Venoms, Wave Serpents, Ghost Arks, and the Tantalus become absolutely absurd.

Measuring between units is a defined process, one that can not be followed when placing models where the vehicle used to be. (This is because we only have one unit to work with, as the other is destroyed and has been removed from the board).

So you simply place the surviving passengers where the vehicle used to be.

If there is a part of the model that is not where the vehicle used to be, you have broken the rule about placing the surviving passengers where the vehicle used to be.

Aren't you breaking it by putting them in the foot print not where the model was in the case of transports on flight bases?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.

No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'.

This in incorrect. GW very clearly uses the term "wholly within" when they mean exactly that. Your interpretation is just that.. yours.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.

No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'.

This in incorrect. GW very clearly uses the term "wholly within" when they mean exactly that. Your interpretation is just that.. yours.

Here is the thing, they don't use within at all here, so there is no reason for them to use "wholly within"

It is not my interpretation, it is the RAW.

Since they tell you the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" and no mention of within, if you have any part of the model that is not "where the vehicle used to be" then you have broken that rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Wouldn't it say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' or some such? If the whole base needs to be within a specified distance, it will say so when it comes to any other kind of measurement. Everywhere else, if part of the base is where it's supposed to be, the model is considered to be there.

No, it doesn't have to say 'entirely where the vehicle used to be' because that is covered by saying 'where the vehicle used to be'.

This in incorrect. GW very clearly uses the term "wholly within" when they mean exactly that. Your interpretation is just that.. yours.

Here is the thing, they don't use within at all here, so there is no reason for them to use "wholly within"

It is not my interpretation, it is the RAW.

Since they tell you the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" and no mention of within, if you have any part of the model that is not "where the vehicle used to be" then you have broken that rule.

"Used to be" contains zero language stating what you claim. Therefore it cannot be RAW.

Incorrect Fragile.

"Used to be" says everything.

The red area is definitely not where the vehicle used to be.

Therefore a rule is broken by #3.

Yup, its says that as long as any part of the model is where the vehicle used to be then it is indeed where it "used to be"

No different than "on the base" for the Twisted copse or "in Moonscape craters". aka the new area terrains


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The red area is definitely not where the vehicle used to be.

Therefore a rule is broken by #3.

The white of 3 is indeed where it "used to be." Therefore the model is where is "used to be"

DeathReaper,
What does 'All other Objects' mean in the Measuring Distance Rules?

The Rule is badly written to begin with, it says to measure between Objects from their base but examples of 'objects' include things without bases, but the Measurement Rules tell us that they are used for all things known as 'objects.'

JinxDragon wrote:
DeathReaper,
What does 'All other Objects' mean in the Measuring Distance Rules?

The Rule is badly written to begin with, it says to measure between Objects from their base but examples of 'objects' include things without bases, but the Measurement Rules tell us that they are used for all things known as 'objects.'

except the vehicle has been removed, there is no other object.

Fragile wrote:
Yup, its says that as long as any part of the model is where the vehicle used to be then it is indeed where it "used to be"

No different than "on the base" for the Twisted copse or "in Moonscape craters". aka the new area terrains


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The red area is definitely not where the vehicle used to be.

Therefore a rule is broken by #3.

The white of 3 is indeed where it "used to be." Therefore the model is where is "used to be"

Incorrect, the model is partially where the vehicle used to be.

The red is clearly not where the vehicle used to be, therefore the model is not where the vehicle used to be. The rule has been broken.

It is the same debate as when people said that models in reserve had to move on the table, and they claimed that 0.000001 inches fulfilled the requirement, however this was also not true as it did not say to move partially on the table. (As noted in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/315833.page)

 DeathReaper wrote:
[
Incorrect, the model is partially where the vehicle used to be.

Good, you admit the model is where the vehicle "used to be."

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
[
Incorrect, the model is partially where the vehicle used to be.

Good, you admit the model is where the vehicle "used to be."

No, I admit that it is "partially where the vehicle used to be"

Which is different than "where the vehicle used to be"

The requirement is "where the vehicle used to be", not "partially where the vehicle used to be"

so to place the model "partially where the vehicle used to be" is not fulfilling the rules.

It is, because GW clearly states when they require "wholly within" or "completely within" to be a requirement. Disembarking and Linebreaker have those requirements. Vehicles blowing up do not.

So to make sure I have this straight DeathReaper. The models have to be placed wholly where the models used to be. So models taller than their transport (due to say banners) are auto removed correct? Likewise any models that don't float are auto destroyed whenever a Skimmer is destroyed? This is your interpretation correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact I'm struggling to think of a single incidence where a model can be legally placed wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by its transport.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So to make sure I have this straight DeathReaper. The models have to be placed wholly where the models used to be. So models taller than their transport (due to say banners) are auto removed correct? Likewise any models that don't float are auto destroyed whenever a Skimmer is destroyed? This is your interpretation correct?

No that it not my interpretation.

The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"

That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.

As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.

Fragile wrote:
It is, because GW clearly states when they require "wholly within" or "completely within" to be a requirement. Disembarking and Linebreaker have those requirements. Vehicles blowing up do not.

Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply.

It is not fulfilling the rule about "where the vehicle used to be" since there is a part of the model not where the vehicle used to be you have broken that rule.

If the rule is to have it so every model HAS to be 100% WITHIN the same area the vehicle originated...then they screwed the pooch, because i don't think it would be possible to fit 20 Boyz in the same spot as a Battle Wagon, let alone if you have a Warboss and/or Big Mek with them. Why they would allow a 20 model carry limit with that idea in mind is wholeheartedly stupid. And yes, despite GW having shoddy rules at times, that would be far too large an oversight to not get a proper FAQ. I think people are reaching when they say you need them to all stand exactly within the outline of the destroyed vehicle. It would be too restrictive of certain armies, either on purpose or on accident. Doesn't sit right. And I don't think I've EVER seen a single battle report or played a single game that plays in such a ridiculous manner.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So to make sure I have this straight DeathReaper. The models have to be placed wholly where the models used to be. So models taller than their transport (due to say banners) are auto removed correct? Likewise any models that don't float are auto destroyed whenever a Skimmer is destroyed? This is your interpretation correct?

No that it not my interpretation.

The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be"

That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.

As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.

Fragile wrote:
It is, because GW clearly states when they require "wholly within" or "completely within" to be a requirement. Disembarking and Linebreaker have those requirements. Vehicles blowing up do not.

Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply.

It is not fulfilling the rule about "where the vehicle used to be" since there is a part of the model not where the vehicle used to be you have broken that rule.

To me, your interpretation is what is messing this up. Like what FlingitNow's examples, I see that your interpretation makes this more difficult than it should be.

Going by your interpretation, I believe it is impossible to put a model where a vehicle used to be. In your diagram, the models are only partially where the vehicle used to be. To put them completely where they used to be, I would have to take each model and smash it into a thin paste and spread it entirely over the vehicle's footprint, since the vehicle was in a larger space than what a passenger could possibly be in. This example only fulfills two dimensions of the vehicle as well (Length and width) and cannot possible fill the height dimension.

Your interpretation in this scenario makes placing passengers where the vehicle used to be impossible.