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.

Specific scenario here.  Basically, this comes down to the meaning of within 24".  Does "cannot deploy within 24 inches of the enemy" include or not include the actual distance of 24 inches?  If you must deploy 24 inches and a hair away, then you cannot get a first turn charge (with, say, rough riders), but if you can delploy at 24 inches, then you could get a first turn charge.  Any ideas?

If you cannot deploy within 24", that means moving 24" in one turn is illegal.

You must deploy at least 24.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 inches (you get the idea) apart from the enemy.

Damn post-eating quick reply box...

You're wrong Yak, 'Cannot deploy within 24"' means <24". That means at EXACTLY 24" from the enemy, you're golden, and it's POSSIBLE you COULD get a 1st turn charge.

In laymans terms, deploying at 23.99999999999999999999999999" is illegal.  24" and above is fine.

You would have to be EXACTLY on the money (24") for it (1st turn charge) to happen though.

AK, I was under the impression that within 24" means < or = 24". But dictionary.com doesn't have anything for within. Damn.

K, if you are "exactly" 24" from the enemy, then you are clearly "within 24"" which is explicitely prohibited.

Not sure how you're coming to your conclusion to be honest.

'within' means 'inside the bounds of'

If you are on the fence, you're not inside the fence.

Too much exposure to math (and therefore, word problems) in my life is where I get it.

From Dictionary.com


with·in ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wth-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.


The preposition definition 2.a, 2.b, and 2.d describe it best.

But as I said, it's dicey to get it EXACTLY on the 24" line, and then measure and move EXACTLY 24" to get the 1st turn charge. Possible, but somewhat unlikely (with all the human error, paralax and measurement imprecision compounded in every step).

My dictionary says "Inside the fixed limits of; not beyond"

So if you must be not be not beyond, then you must be beyond.

 

Posted By mauleed on 04/10/2006 9:58 PM

So if you must be not be not beyond, then you must be beyond.

 

Mrs. Schmidt would have a conniption fit with that syntax.

Try to recall your basic math.  The number line, specifically.  There's 3 different portions.  Below a given number (23.999999999999999999999999999... etc"), EXACTLY on the number (24") and beyond a given number (24.0000000000000000000000000...1 etc").  Within is inside the limit (24").  That leaves 2 regions that it's perfectly legal to deploy at.  EXACTLY ON 24", and beyond 24". 

Theoretically speaking, it is POSSIBLE to deploy EXACTLY ON 24", and then move EXACTLY 24" and get EXACTLY on the money base to base contact... but it's nigh impossible with all the human error that's going to go into it.  So it's far more likely that the first turn charge ISN'T going to happen.  Not because it's illegal... just because of all the human error involved in the measurement.  Shoot, even wiggle from a loose tip on a tape measure would do it.  Those 1/16" add up.

That being said, if a person measures 24" and makes it into b2b with a 1/2" to spare... they cheated and deployed too close.

24 inches is 24 inches but it's a difference that makes no difference. As Insaniak said, if you are on the fence you are not inside. As Yak said, if you can charge and hit, you were too close. It's impossible to measure that accurately in a game.

It seems to me that GW should have said "deploy outside maximum possible charge range" or "more than 24 inches", but who knows? Perhaps they intended that SM bikers should charge and hit on the first turn.

Perhaps they intended that SM bikers should charge and hit on the first turn.

Huh? One cannot turbo-boost into assault, my friend.

To add more to the difficulty, I don't believe that any unit out there is capable of making a single 24 inch assault move. This means that for example, a unit of Tyranid Raveners would have to move, fleet, and charge, all along absolutely perfectly straight lines towards the enemy units. Deviating even a single degree on any of those three moves would result in failure as we're talking about absolute perfect 24" distances, therefore you must go in an *absolute* straight line with no margin for error.

I don't think it would be fair to say it is within the bounds of eyeballing and inaccurate measuring tapes that a human being could reasonably pull this off without pre-measuring or somehow sighting the move with scientifically calibrated tools to be perfectly straight and dead on target.

Say you were standing exactly 24 feet from Walmart. If someone asked you if you were within 24 feet of Walmart, would you say yes?

If someone with arm reach + knife has a total reach of exactly 24", would you consider 24" within this person's reach, and hence stand there while they swipe at you?

To add more to the difficulty, I don't believe that any unit out there is capable of making a single 24 inch assault move.

Not to deviate from the topic too much, but it is possible to charge up to 32" on the first turn with Dark Eldar.

You haven't played against Wyches in Raiders then, my friend.

Edit: Nid_Food beat me to it.

As an aside, say that you could theoretically deploy at exactly 24" away from an enemy unit and you have a unit that can move, fleet, and assault like cavalry.  Say you know that you are exactly 24" away at the beginning of the game, because you are allowed to measure that in most scenarios.  Then say that the unit rolls a 6 for its fleet roll.  But somehow, when the unit attempts to charge, it is a fraction of an inch too short from making it into base contact.  Your opponent says that since he rolled a 6 for fleet, he gets to move 24" that turn and must have measured wrong during one of his 3 movements.  Do you let him get into assault with your unit on the first turn?

- Oaka

No, I don't. If he wants to get that 24" charge and make into CC, the onus is on HIM to get the measurements EXACTLY right. If he didn't make it, well he needs to be more precise then.

Ahoj!
No.
Borys

If you shoot at a squad that's exactly 12" away, are you within rapid fire range?

If you're exactly 18" away from an enemy unit with your assault squad, is the enemy unit within your charge reach?

We can play these kinds of verbal games all day long, but it isn't going to get us anywhere. Anyone got a better definition of the actual rule that we can go off of, or are we stuck with the ambiguity of the English language?

KW

We're stuck with the ambiguity of language unless GW define things more clearly.

I don't see it being a problem in actual play. If people want to be sure thay can rapid fire, etc, they need to move close enough that the measurement is not critically exact. In other words, move to 11+1/2 inches away before firing.

All experienced tabletop players know it's impossible to measure to the 0.001 of an inch.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 04/11/2006 8:52 AM

All experienced tabletop players know it's impossible to measure to the 0.001 of an inch.

Which makes it all the more rediculous that the argument is boiling down to such precise measurements...

Although it is impossible to measure within the .001". I just use logic.
I move 6", fleet 6" and you measured to make sure you are 24" away exact (quite common around here) therefore I assault 12" and should be able to get you. We don't even measure it out because this way is quicker. I effectively have 24" charge and you are 24" away therefore i got you. Move the first and then the others in the same coherency. I truly agree it is possible to be 24" away. See insaniaks reasoning.

Try to recall your basic math. The number line, specifically.

K, be careful with the number line analogy. Number lines have specific guidelines and symbols for determining whether a number is included (a dot) or not included (a circle).

By using the term "not within", the sentence establishes how one would setup a number line for this particular word problem. And 24" would certainly be included in a 'not within' number line. It really isn't ambiguous at all.

All experienced tabletop players know it's impossible to measure to the 0.001 of an inch.

This is true so it is incumbent on the players to not take undo advantage of that fact.

Most people play that if you can't deploy within 24" means that you have to deploy outside of 24".

In theory you can deploy your raiders sideways. Then you can pivot them on the spot gaining you 3? and then move+fleet+charge gives you a 27? charge range.

Edit: I forgot the 2.9" disembark, so Dark eldar can assault anywhere from 24.9" to 29.9" on the first turn.

3"+12"+2.9"+1d6"+6"

In 3rd edition we had a player that would always line all of his rhinos up sideways to get the extra movement. We nicknamed it the "power pivot".

No, because that pivot would count as movement during the movement phase, and you would have moved more than 12" in the movement phase, therefore preventing you from disembarking.

However, you can get a 27" charge by: Moving raider 12"; disembark "within two inches(i.e. the base of the model is 2" from the access point, allowed per the diagram in the main book); fleet 6"; then charge 6". 12" fly, plus 2" disembark, plus 1" inch base, plus 6" fleet, plus 6" charge equals 27".

Pivots don't count as movement. It's quite clear on the point.

 

You can pivot during the firing phase, which is a free move - but, if you "pivot" during the movement phase, then I would claim that at least one part of the vehicle has made the movement necessary for that turn. In other words, the front has moved. It is not just a pivot, because the vehicle has moved away from its initial point, and therefore it is not able to take advantage of the free pivot rules.

Now having said that, I feel that I need to reread the section. If you have a section that disproves me, I would not be overly surprised.

Of course, in any game where there are a bunch of raiders deployed sideways at the front of a deployment zone, whoever gets first turn wins.  You might as well play I-Spy-With-My-Little-Eye, save you $500.

- Oaka

You can pivot during the firing phase, which is a free move - but, if you "pivot" during the movement phase, then I would claim that at least one part of the vehicle has made the movement necessary for that turn. In other words, the front has moved. It is not just a pivot, because the vehicle has moved away from its initial point, and therefore it is not able to take advantage of the free pivot rules.

"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting about the spot about their centre-point, rather than 'wheeling' around. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move [...]" (BGB 61).

Questions?

No, no - I think that about covers it. Uncle!

Well, so I guess you can get a 30" charge, then. Ugh. I second your thought, there, Oaka. Guess I haven't been abusing the situation with my Raiders enough!

Posted By winterman on 04/11/2006 12:49 PM

Try to recall your basic math. The number line, specifically.

K, be careful with the number line analogy. Number lines have specific guidelines and symbols for determining whether a number is included (a dot) or not included (a circle).

By using the term "not within", the sentence establishes how one would setup a number line for this particular word problem. And 24" would certainly be included in a 'not within' number line. It really isn't ambiguous at all.

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. 

"Not within" means it's perfectly alright to be "at" and "beyond".  In numberline mathspeak, open circle above 24", arrow pointing left.  That's where you cannot deploy.