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.

Mahtamori wrote:Before this turns into a flame war, I hope everyone involved realizes that it's often impossible to place all models entirely within a Xeno transport's footprint. Try placing 12 25mm models entirely within the footprint of a Falcon.

Remember that GW doesn't write rules for tournaments, so you have to be somewhat adaptable. In this case you place as many models as is possible within the vehicle's radius. It does sound like the OP's opponent cheated - intentionally or otherwise is impossible to say, however.

This

Like

Doomthumbs, regardless of how you'd like to spin it, the fact is, in the sentence, "place the models where the vehicle used to be," there is no qualifier. None.

Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Saying anything other than this is adding a qualifier where there previously was none. It's that simple.

If the entire area of the base had to be within anything in order to gain its benefits/detriments, you'd never be able to claim a cover save as long as the tiniest sliver of your model's base was outside of the area terrain. You'd never have to take a dangerous terrain test if your jump infantry just jumped into difficult terrain, as long as the tiniest sliver was outside of the terrain. You'd never be able to disembark properly from a vehicle, since it's very hard to fit 20 Boyz within 2" of the access points on a Battlewagon with an 'Ard Case. Not that I'd ever take an 'Ard Case on my Wagons, just saying. And don't get me started on Necron Monolith portals...

What a bunch of TFG cheaters...seriously. So glad I don't have to play a game with any of you lot thinking 'inside' means only partially inside.

Except that is exactly what it means.

It's not being "TFG" OR "Cheating" if you are actually following the rules.

SaintHazard wrote:Doomthumbs, regardless of how you'd like to spin it, the fact is, in the sentence, "place the models where the vehicle used to be," there is no qualifier. None.

Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Saying anything other than this is adding a qualifier where there previously was none. It's that simple.

You're actually shooting down your own argument down, inside the same post. That's really quite spectacular.

if we could avoid calling each other cheats and so when we're debating the, clearly, super serious issue of the exact placement of plastic toy soldiers that'd be super.

Would you like to point out where, or would you like to continue making unfounded blanket statements about my posts?

From a purely logical standpoint:

Say you have a circle. You place one foot inside the circle, and one foot outside the circle.

True or false: you are inside the circle. True.

True or false: you are outside the circle. True.

What are you required to be? Inside the circle.

Are you required to be "ONLY inside the circle?" No. Are you required to be "entirely inside the circle?" No. Are you required to be "not outside the circle?" No.

You are required to be "inside the circle." Since you're both "inside the circle" and "outside the circle..."

Requirements met.

I really don't see how this is difficult to understand?

Rymafyr wrote:What a bunch of cheaters...seriously. So glad I don't have to play a game with any of you lot thinking 'inside' means only partially inside.

SaintHazard wrote:Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Seriously. Sure, putting a pinky toe inside the crater is still technically inside the crater, but if you've done so to confer an advantage to yourself as opposed to putting your models all the way inside the crater, you're being exactly the kind of player that everyone wants to go home as soon as they show their face around the store. If your vehicle is exploding, obviously the other player is doing well that game. Well enough to blow up your vehicle. So I guess you better rob him of doing any better by skirting the rule on a technicality, right? You're meeting the reqs, sure, but 'inside the circle' truly doesn't even begin to cover
what else you are' if you're playing like that. Seriously, the rule says 'where the vehicle used to be'. Since you're following a general convention in your insistence that a pinky toe inside the circle is still inside, and not an actual rule, I struggle to see how you occupy a moral high ground. In fact, you're most likely having the player across the table roll their eyes at you. I know I am.

Additionally, I'm noticing a lot of people putting others down because they won't conform to their own standards. Condescending to them even, claiming first that they're making stuff up, followed by mocking the clarification as a change from the original, clawing at straws to prove you wrong when they themselves are 'right' by no stretch of the imagination. There is NO RULE in the book that covers whether they need to be 'entirely' vs 'partially' in the space where the vehicle was in order to be 'where the vehicle was', but I'm sure that whatever side you choose, people like this will take the opposite stance, harry you down to where you no longer care or want to hear it, and then relate to their cat how right they were today and that the other guys were totally wrong. Purr? Yes kitty, I wish we had real friends too.

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you required to be "ONLY inside the circle?"

Yes.

Where does it say you are allowed to be outside of the circle at all ? In this situation.

If does not say that you are allowed to be outside of the circle then you are exceeeding the permitted parameters of the established situation and therefore you are not following logic at all, you are in fact making a supposition that alters the defined setting of the situation.

This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, no matter how much you wish to stretch the examples given.


And most of your arguments claiming to use linguistics are ridiculous : If you are charged $10 for an item and you only pay $1 you have paid for the item, according to the interesting bent of logic you're suggesting. Clearly this isn't the case right ?


I really don't see how this is difficult to understand.

Doomthumbs.

Cool your balls. The personal attacks are entirely unnecessary and out of line, especially considering I haven't thrown a single one at you.

First off, I never said this is how I play it. I said this is what the rules say, which is exactly what you just said. How we play it hasn't even come into this conversation from my angle yet. I personally place my damn infantry in the center of the footprint because I'm a good sportsman, and at the end of the day, I'm here to have fun. In a tournament setting, I'd consider placing them on the very edge, but that's a whole different animal.

Second, you're calling Nos (and me, though undeserved? I can't tell) out on his condescending tone when you just took a major step in that direction yourself by calling me all sorts of nasty things instead of responding calmly and rationally to the points I put forward. If you think it's hard to take Nos seriously, try putting yourself in my shoes. It's even worse from over here - at least Nos isn't pretending to be above such standards. You are.

Take a chill pill, take a breath of reality, realize that you're simply being rude, and please refrain from doing so in the future (better, red?). Thanks.

I would not play it that way, but as the rules are worded Saint's argument makes sense - even if it ispushing it a bit. I have never placed my models outside the crater, but using the boundless power of my imagination it is not a stretch that maybe one of the passengers might end up sprawled to the side of the vehicle..then again one might also be blown straight across the board...

I'll keep playing it inside the crater and if my opponent wants to work the system a bit, I'll be sure those berserkers are out of charge range next time they blow one of my transports up...

reds8n wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you required to be "ONLY inside the circle?"

Yes.

Where does it say you are allowed to be outside of the circle at all ? In this situation.

If does not say that you are allowed to be outside of the circle then you are exceeeding the permitted parameters of the established situation and therefore you are not following logic at all, you are in fact making a supposition that alters the defined setting of the situation.

This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, no matter how much you wish to stretch the examples given.


And most of your arguments claiming to use linguistics are ridiculous : If you are charged $10 for an item and you only pay $1 you have paid for the item, according to the interesting bent of logic you're suggesting. Clearly this isn't the case right ?


I really don't see how this is difficult to understand.

So because it doesn't say you're allowed to be outside the circle, you may not in any case be outside of the circle, even though the only requirement actually explicitly stated has been met?

Let me just point out how that logic changes the game: Area terrain never confers a cover save unless the model is entirely 100% inside of it. Dangerous terrain never forces a test unless the entire model is 100% inside of it. You can never assault unless 100% of your base can touch or occupy the space of 100% of the assaulted model's base (meaning assault never works). You can't shoot unless you can draw range on 100% of the opponent's model's base. Vehicles can never pivot, because 100% of the vehicle has to pivot, and pivoting is impossible without a pivot point - a point that does not pivot, as everything else is pivoting around it.

I could go on, but your assertion effectively breaks the game.

If one wishes to (claim) that they are arguing from a purely logical POV then yes... it would be unwise for posters to do so then ? Especially, perhaps, if their logic isn't quite up to scratch.

So because it doesn't say you're allowed to be outside the circle, you may not in any case be outside of the circle, even though the only requirement actually explicitly stated has been met?

If one wishes to genuinely argue from the oft lauded yet totally ridiculous RAW perspective then you may not deploy outside of the circle as this is not written as an option for you.

As some, wise, people stated earlier the game isn't written or played to an exacting nTH degree.. and I'd imagine it would be totally unenjoyable if it was even possible to do so.


IMO, the only way you can have a workable situation here is if one treats this situation, more or less, as if one is using the normal deploying from a vehicle rules, so indeed a model could have the back of its base "inside" the required area and qualify.

But, as I hope you can see, this is not the RAW as such and involves the use of elements not directly covered in your above statements, as you seemed to be claiming.

And anyway, it's much cooler to have your models positioned as if they're charging out of the burning wreck of their vehicle, ready to sell tehmselves dearly or to seek revenge.

Well yeah, that last part goes without saying.

From a purely logical standpoint, omission is not restriction, and if a single requirement is explicitly given, and met, regardless of what else is happening, you're kosher.

But I can see your point.

Anyway, at this point it's getting circular, and I'm content to agree to disagree with a side of "discuss it with your opponent if it comes up, and be a good sportsman by taking the less advantageous route if they have an issue."

SaintHazard wrote:Vehicles can never pivot, because 100% of the vehicle has to pivot, and pivoting is impossible without a pivot point - a point that does not pivot, as everything else is pivoting around it.

reds8n wrote:This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, no matter how much you wish to stretch the examples given.

Big Rule Book page 57 wrote:
Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their center point

So after 'cooling my balls' using the tears of the unrighteous as lubricant, I noticed you made some more stuff up. Most heinous of which is your assertion about vehicles, which the rulebook clearly gives a pivot point to. Since the other examples you've given are all predicated on a system that requires a general consensus between players to know what those terms all mean, it still comes down to whether or not you're a decent opponent as far as other people wanting to play with you goes. With the exception of the area terrain providing cover, all of your examples are refuted by the rulebook. And the cover thing is too, since if its unclear you just modify the save by -1.

So you're still bending the rules to suit you while pointing fingers at everyone else and screaming that they're wrong because they don't think as you do. This isn't Schrodinger's 40K, but I find myself wanting to try and make it so by placing opponents of this type in a box. Are they dead or alive? Well until we look, its both. But before we DO look, lets play another game of 40k and wonder what that odd scratching noise is.

Hey, cool, there's that condescension again.

I'm pretty content to pretend your posts don't exist until you stop doing that. It's annoying.

SaintHazard wrote:Hey, cool, there's that condescension again.

Without noting the irony in that, no wait, there it is.
Can't we all just get along?
And put our models where the vehicle used to be, and not also where it did not use to be?

Yes, I was never a very good firefighter.

That said, I've already said I'm perfectly content putting my infantry entirely where the vehicle used to be, and not at all where it never was.

Ed_Bodger wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Before this turns into a flame war, I hope everyone involved realizes that it's often impossible to place all models entirely within a Xeno transport's footprint. Try placing 12 25mm models entirely within the footprint of a Falcon.

Remember that GW doesn't write rules for tournaments, so you have to be somewhat adaptable. In this case you place as many models as is possible within the vehicle's radius. It does sound like the OP's opponent cheated - intentionally or otherwise is impossible to say, however.

This

Like

It's just about possible.

That one part of the base needs to be within the specified area is most consistent with how ranges and areas are measured in other parts of the game, such as finding if a unit is range to be fired on. I really have a hard a time seeing why this is such an issue. If they really wanted placement within the footprint of a vehicle to be so widely different from placement of deployment, measuring firing distance, hits by templates/blasts, deep strike mishaps, etc, etc.. It'd probably say so explicitly.

Granted that is probably giving GW rules writers to much credit, but still putting aside any ambiguity (I really don't see it) all the precedence in the other parts of the rules don't indicate any reasons that "inside" means "entirely inside" that just isn't how things are done for the most part.

SaintHazard wrote:Yes, I was never a very good firefighter.

That said, I've already said I'm perfectly content putting my infantry entirely where the vehicle used to be, and not at all where it never was.

I love it. Since we've done the pre game haggling, I'd love to have a game or two with you using these rules.

Chongara wrote:If they really wanted placement within the footprint of a vehicle to be so widely different from placement of deployment, measuring firing distance, hits by templates/blasts, deep strike mishaps, etc, etc.. It'd probably say so explicitly.

But they do say so explicitly. The damaged- wrecked result on the table results in models deploying from the vehicle if they can. The exploding result doesnt say that they deploy into the crater, just that they get they get put there.

SaintHazard wrote: regardless of what else is happening, you're kosher.

Don't go bringing religion into it, there's even more RAI vs. RAW arguments there than here !

I would "suggest" that it would be a good idea if both sides laid off the general snippiness and cheap shots : as a general rule unless a person is typing out the exact word for word version of a rule then please allow them the odd digression from the strict wording and attribute this to human frailty and imperfection rather than "heinous" lies or somesuch.

It IS just 40K.

Well then what are we going to do with all this extra cheese on our post explosion hamburger?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
It IS just 40K.

Big Rule Book, page iv wrote: Warhammer 40,000 is far, far more than just a game.

Maybe some people just stopped reading there.

Fondue.

Doomthumbs wrote:But they do say so explicitly. The damaged- wrecked result on the table results in models deploying from the vehicle if they can. The exploding result doesnt say that they deploy into the crater, just that they get they get put there.

I understand that. The crater is an area. The unit is something being put within that area. Generally speaking, in 40k something is considered within that area when it is touching that area.

A unit is within in range of a shooting attack, that is the area that valid targets exist in, so long as part of one model is.
A model is within the range of a template or blast so long as part of it is touching the respective green plastic.
A unit is considered to suffer a mishap for deep striking so long as one part of one past of one model is in an illegal position.
A unit is considered to be within range of an area affect, so long as one model is.

That is, when you have an area (the crater) the unit is within that crater so long as part of it is. That's just what consist with game objects being defined as "within" an area.

Now if I was personally making the rule(ing) I'd probably want it such that each model composing the unit must be within the area (that means the base of each model must be at least partially in contact with the crater) however the rules don't really point at that. It's a bit counter intuitive I'll admit, given what the rule is supposedly representing.

However when it comes to a unit (a game object) being within the crater (a game space) it's most consistent with other rules that the given object is within the given space so long as part of it is within the given space. That's just how objects in areas are overwhelmingly defined in 40k, and nothing cited so far makes it any different.

SaintHazard wrote:Doomthumbs, regardless of how you'd like to spin it, the fact is, in the sentence, "place the models where the vehicle used to be," there is no qualifier. None.

Say I'm told I need to be within a circle. I place my little toe within the circle. I am now both within the circle and outside of the circle. Am I within the circle? Simple linguistics. Yes I am. I am also outside of the circle, but as long as I am within the circle, regardless of what else I am, I meet the requirements set before me.

Saying anything other than this is adding a qualifier where there previously was none. It's that simple.

If the entire area of the base had to be within anything in order to gain its benefits/detriments, you'd never be able to claim a cover save as long as the tiniest sliver of your model's base was outside of the area terrain. You'd never have to take a dangerous terrain test if your jump infantry just jumped into difficult terrain, as long as the tiniest sliver was outside of the terrain. You'd never be able to disembark properly from a vehicle, since it's very hard to fit 20 Boyz within 2" of the access points on a Battlewagon with an 'Ard Case. Not that I'd ever take an 'Ard Case on my Wagons, just saying. And don't get me started on Necron Monolith portals...

Saint, your examples given really kill your argument since those instances SPECIFICALLY provide for partially being in cover or with the qualifier of upon entering difficult/dangerous terrain. Those examples give specific permission for placing a model partially in cover and getting a cover save and that entering difficult/dangerous terrain forces a test.

The qualifier in the rule is inside the area occupied by where the vehicle used to be. So lets look at it as follows:

Survivor outside where the vehicle used to be: The rule is not being followed.
Survivor half inside/half outside where the vehicle used to be: The rule is not being followed.
Survivor inside where the vehicle used to be: The rule is being followed.

No matter how much you want to argue about semantics for your point, you can not say your model is inside the area where the vehicle used to be WITHOUT completely disregarding that the model is also outside the where the vehicle used to be. At that point, you are not following RAW since the rule specifies "inside". Nothing more, nothing less, nothing in-between, just "inside".

Now for the pinky toe in the house. are you inside or is your toe inside. Again people are trying to equate real world logic to the World of Warhammer 40k. Now say that "you" are defined to be your entire body as per the BRB in that the model occupies the area of its base. Sticking your toe inside the house would not qualify as "you" being inside the house. Your entire body would have to be inside the house to qualify as "you" being inside the house.

So back to the actual instance. In this picture, the red box represents the Berserker Rhino and the black circles represent where he placed his models after I destroyed the vehicle with a destroyed-exploded result:


He claimed that they were on the edge of the crater with this placement and thus "inside" the area where the vehicle used to be. For those that asked, he was running Khorne sacred number 8 sized Berserker squads.

Brother Ramses wrote:


He claimed that they were on the edge of the crater with this placement and thus "inside" the area where the vehicle used to be. For those that asked, he was running Khorne sacred number 8 sized Berserker squads.

Personally, that wouldn't have gotten even a raised eyebrow from me, any more than the claim all those models were getting hit if that was some kind of strange big square blast marker. It seems very much in line with how the rules as a whole work. If it was some big conga line out a whole foot from where the rhino was, yeah it'd seem like they were torturing the rules (but even then I'm not sure it'd actually be a real violation of them).

Chongara wrote:

Doomthumbs wrote:But they do say so explicitly. The damaged- wrecked result on the table results in models deploying from the vehicle if they can. The exploding result doesnt say that they deploy into the crater, just that they get they get put there.

I understand that. The crater is an area. The unit is something being put within that area. Generally speaking, in 40k something is considered within that area when it is touching that area.

A unit is within in range of a shooting attack, that is the area that valid targets exist in, so long as part of one model is.
A model is within the range of a template or blast so long as part of it is touching the respective green plastic.
A unit is considered to suffer a mishap for deep striking so long as one part of one past of one model is in an illegal position.
A unit is considered to be within range of an area affect, so long as one model is.

That is, when you have an area (the crater) the unit is within that crater so long as part of it is. That's just what consist with game objects being defined as "within" an area.

Now if I was personally making the rule(ing) I'd probably want it such that each model composing the unit must be within the area (that means the base of each model must be at least partially in contact with the crater) however the rules don't really point at that. It's a bit counter intuitive I'll admit, given what the rule is supposedly representing.

However when it comes to a unit (a game object) being within the crater (a game space) it's most consistent with other rules that the given object is within the given space so long as part of it is within the given space. That's just how objects in areas are overwhelmingly defined in 40k, and nothing cited so far makes it any different.

Every example you have given has specific instructions that permit for those circumstances in which you are arguing. You are pointing out rules that specify that if one model is in range, the whole unit is. GW wrote that specifically. Same with the template weapons, GW specficially pointed it out. In this instance they did not point it out. So you can either be the GW love/hate fan boy and say it is due to crappy GW writing or you take it as written that inside means inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:


He claimed that they were on the edge of the crater with this placement and thus "inside" the area where the vehicle used to be. For those that asked, he was running Khorne sacred number 8 sized Berserker squads.

Personally, that wouldn't have gotten even a raised eyebrow from me, any more than the claim all those models were getting hit if that was some kind of strange big square blast marker. It seems very much in line with how the rules as a whole work. If it was some big conga line out a whole foot from where the rhino was, yeah it'd seem like they were torturing the rules (but even then I'm not sure it'd actually be a real violation of them).

Would you care to explain how those survivors are placed INSIDE where the vehicle used to be?

Brother Ramses wrote:Would you care to explain how those survivors are placed INSIDE where the vehicle used to be?

Part of their base is. I feel that this is most consistent with how occupying the areas has been defined in other parts of the rules. Yes you can argue for some ambiguity in this rule and that has been going back and forth for 3 pages so there really isn't any need for me retread it. I'm saying that ambiguity aside, that "at least partially inside" is the interpretation that leads to to the rule set being most cohesive. As such it's the interpretation I prefer, given neither case is Iron-Clad.

How is this different than measuring distances between 2 units?

Chongara wrote:If it was some big conga line out a whole foot from where the rhino was, yeah it'd seem like they were torturing the rules (but even then I'm not sure it'd actually be a real violation of them).

I'm pretty sure a foot outside the crater is fair game for me asking what the hell you're talking about and laughing as I make you move them to a legal spot. Not only is that not just where the vehicle was and some extra cheese, thats the entire holdings of the Sargento family. Again, Ramses' point is that the rule says 'where the vehicle used to be'. Pinky toe inside is still technically inside , but the other nine toes are where the vehicle was not. I'd compromise the same way I do for units in area cover. 50% of the unit needs to be in cover to get a cover save for the unit, so models only count toward that 50% if 50% of their base is in the terrain. Thats a houserule I try and maintain, but it serves me pretty well.
There isn't ever going to be a way that destroying your foe will ingratiate yourself to him, especially in a game where armies can cost upwards of a thousand US dollars. That hurts, but what makes people actually upset is when they deal with people that are bending the rule to suit them.
So why be that guy? I realize you like 40k. I like 40k. We registered here so we can talk about how much we love 40k.
So why try and make it into a rules debate unless thats something both players enjoy doing? When winning is more important than friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Kirsanth, Because the rules for that say any part of the base. Rules for explodes do not. (Technically)