Switch Theme:

Model too big to fit (not the base!) can i place the model there?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 skchsan wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.
Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.
Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.


Except for GW FAQ and errata are same thing.

Just learn to accept that for GW FAQ can and does change RAW. Also people need to accept that GW FB can and does contain official answers that can thus change RAW. Trying to remove legallity by using stupid terms like special snowflake FAQ accomplish only making users credibility drop down.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 10:31:43


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

tneva82 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.
Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.
Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.


Except for GW FAQ and errata are same thing.

Just learn to accept that for GW FAQ can and does change RAW. Also people need to accept that GW FB can and does contain official answers that can thus change RAW. Trying to remove legallity by using stupid terms like special snowflake FAQ accomplish only making users credibility drop down.


I love how what had become a spoof thread veers back around to debating whether FAQs can change rule for the umpteenth time. GET OVER IT GUYS!

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






tneva82 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.
Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.
Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.


Except for GW FAQ and errata are same thing.

Just learn to accept that for GW FAQ can and does change RAW. Also people need to accept that GW FB can and does contain official answers that can thus change RAW. Trying to remove legallity by using stupid terms like special snowflake FAQ accomplish only making users credibility drop down.
I forgot to add quotation mark on that last statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
If the player with the tomb blades isn't granting you base to base because of the gun, he's pulling a TFG move. He can easily turn his models to fulfill the base-to-base (not that you need to be base to base in order to fight) condition.

Technically not illegal, but generally a distasteful maneuver using MFA.

What allows him to turn his models? Not being able to go base to base could mean fewer models get to fight. But am I right that it is essentially just a houserule that carried over from 7th that you ignore the model except when figuring out line of sight? Is there anyone who doesn't play it this way? Has anyone ever tried pulling a "you can't charge my Wave Serpent because it's too far off the ground" in your community?

It's not modelling for advantage when it's the official model, built per the instruction manual.
Your wave serpent example is precisely what I'm referring to. Denying your opponent base-to-base simply because you have pieces sticking out over the base is no different than denying a charge against a wave serpent because you measure to the hull and the hull is always more than 1" away from the ground.

Followed swiftly by "But that's literally what the rule says."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/04 12:13:06


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand
Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.

 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 deviantduck wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand
Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.
So if I decided my "interpretation" of the rules was that all my models have 20 wounds, by your logic you'd have accept it or you're "nitpicking every fringe interaction". Where is the line drawn and what is your justification? For me the line is drawn when it breaks the written down rules, with the justification that games are a set of instructions and rules, followed by the player until a win state or other failure state is reached.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 16:01:24


 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand
Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.
So if I decided my "interpretation" of the rules was that all my models have 20 wounds, by your logic you'd have accept it or you're "nitpicking every fringe interaction". Where is the line drawn and what is your justification? For me the line is drawn when it breaks the written down rules, with the justification that games are a set of instructions and rules, followed by the player until a win state or other failure state is reached.


Dude, I know you have me blocked, but for everyone else's benefit, I think the reason you come across as ridiculous is that you seem to have no idea what the reasonable person standard is. Would a reasonable person look at the rules and interpret them to say that your dudes get 20 wounds each? No. You're debating in bad faith.

Where is the line drawn? It's generally drawn where an average, reasonable person would draw it. In practice, it's drawn in that hard to nail down grey area between the rules as written and what most people think the authors were trying to convey. I've seen thousands of games played by hundreds of players (used to run a gaming store) and I've never seen someone rigidly and doggedly stick to the rules as written and completely ignore what is sometimes a pretty obvious intention. You're in the minority in terms of where you're willing to draw the line.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.
Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.
Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.


Not sure what a "special snowflake FAQ." is, but the FAQ's certainly can change RAW. (GW has proven this time and time again).
FAQs can change the result of a rule, but they can never change the RaW. You need an errata to change the RaW. That's why FAQs that ignore the RaW are Special Snowflakes.


GW FaQ's disagree with you, the most certainly can (and have) changed the RaW.

"Special Snowflakes" terminology something you attributed to the FAQ for no reason. got it.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

Does it really matter what it's called? FAQ, Errata or some made up terminology I won't repeat?
No, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you read the rules and all current FAQs/Erratas and apply any and all changes. Done

-

   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still don't understand why playing by the rules is considered wrong. Not being flippant, I genuinely do not understand
Because it's a game and there's a nuance between playing by the rules and playing exactly by every letter of the rules. General interpretations of the rules are much more widely accepted than nitpicking every possible fringe interaction.
So if I decided my "interpretation" of the rules was that all my models have 20 wounds, by your logic you'd have accept it or you're "nitpicking every fringe interaction". Where is the line drawn and what is your justification? For me the line is drawn when it breaks the written down rules, with the justification that games are a set of instructions and rules, followed by the player until a win state or other failure state is reached.
That's quite the exaggeration. It's pretty difficult to argue about the value of a printed number. There is no set 'line' for interpretations. The best example I can think of is the banshees and their extra charge distance. There's not a player I've met that would interpret the rule as you do, nor wouldn't allow their opponent the extra charge distance.

BCB as a child: Condolences, female sibling. You have achieved a state of failure. I await your congratulations. Let us ingest off-cycle refreshments based of pudding.


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Oh not the W20 fallacy *again*...

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh not the W20 fallacy *again*...


It's his favorite move. You want to apply critical thinking and context clues in an effort to work out rules as intended? Well, I guess I can interpret my models as having 20 wounds and there is nothing you can do about it. Huzzah! Debate win.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 deviantduck wrote:
The best example I can think of is the banshees and their extra charge distance. There's not a player I've met that would interpret the rule as you do, nor wouldn't allow their opponent the extra charge distance.
Why must you strawman? I never said the Banshees don't get the extra distance, they just can't declare a charge past the limit the game sets, because their special rule does not allow them to do so. This actually makes a big difference when charging up ruins now. You can be 10" away diagonally, and have to move 5+8 inches to get within 1", making the Banshees extra 3" movement range important. Also, just because your opponents break the rules doesn't change what the rules are.

Spoiler:
 deviantduck wrote:
BCB as a child: Condolences, female sibling. You have achieved a state of failure. I await your congratulations. Let us ingest off-cycle refreshments based of pudding.

Correct. I have fond memories of that day.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 20:27:02


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 20:51:03


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 doctortom wrote:
He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.
Because of "The-Rule-Which-Must-Not-Be-Invoked-Upon-In-YMDC" rule, which is in fact a rule in the BRB.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 skchsan wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.
Because of "The-Rule-Which-Must-Not-Be-Invoked-Upon-In-YMDC" rule, which is in fact a rule in the BRB.
And since we're talking about rules in YMDC, I am always talking about rules in the way YMDC allows you to talk about rules, and I assume others are doing the same.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

 skchsan wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
He probably meant they allow the Banshees to declare a charge up to 15" away as well.

It should probably be noted that if both parties agree on house rules beforehand, they aren't breaking rules because they are playing by the rules they agreed on. House rules do change what the rules are, at least in the house where those house rules apply.
Because of "The-Rule-Which-Must-Not-Be-Invoked-Upon-In-YMDC" rule, which is in fact a rule in the BRB.
And because most people wouldn't need a house rule to allow banshees to declare charges at 15" away because most don't even know others feel there is a conflict so it would never come up.

 
   
Made in nl
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Cozy cockpit of an Archer ARC-5S

We're done here.



Fatum Iustum Stultorum



Fiat justitia ruat caelum

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: