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.

Melevolence wrote:
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.

This is exactly what I was thinking. There is no possibime way 18 boys a big Mek and a Warboss could fit in the footprint of a battle wagon. This is the kind of thing that makes me want to cry about with 40k players. There are 3 pages of "discussion" on a topic that is pretty clear if you apply some common sense. Vehicle exploded put dudes generally where the thing exploded. No need to have debates on the rules. Just put them where the vehicle was nothing confusing about it. People spending too much time thinking about it zaps all the fun out of the game and makes people say GW writes crappy rules. The rules are fine most of the time if you don't think about it too much and just play the flipping game. I seriously doubt the EXACT placement of dudes after an explosion woul affect the game but about 1% of the time. Don't be a a-hole about it just put the guys down and play on.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The whole point of RAI. Have an exalt! 

No the whole point of RaI is that it is the actual rules. As in the rules as intended by the Design team when they designed them. Not the rules as you'd like them to be, or rules as you think makes sense, or rules that allow you to do what you want. RaI is the rules as designed by the design team what they actually meant when they wrote the rules.

Goodness gracious!!! Now someone steps in to argue what RAI means. No wonder the rules topics go on forever. By this definition only a handful of people, at best, who actually wrote the rules could ever use the term RAI. People are so pedantic about things. How about you think of RAI as Rules As Interpreted (instead of INTENDED). Give the whole thing a rest.

I think the example I gave of 18 boys, a big mek, and a warboss is pretty clear. They all can't fit into the footprint of a battle wagon but the rules say it is allowed to carry that many. So what is supposed to happen when it explodes? Put the guys generally where the thing was. Any other INTERPRETATION is overly pedantic about the RAW. If someone held me to something so dumb as that, I am pretty sure that is the last game I would have with them. so I suppose if you want to INTERPRET the rule in some other way go ahead, but expect to be playing with your plastic army men all by yourself soon enough.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes those guys can get in a Battlewagon and actually those guys can be legally placed they do not have to be placed wholly within the foot print as that interpretation leads to no models being able to be placed (you'd know this if you bothered to read the thread before commenting).

You can know what RaI to a reasonable level without being the author. RaW is no more knowable than RaI if you're talking absolutes. Rules as Interpreted just means "Rules I made up" and trying to use those rules in a game will lead to far more arguments than using RaW. How you play the game in your group is up to you and your group when playing against someone you don't know trying to play as close to RaI as possible is usually the best way to avoid arguments and using RaW as a tie breaker if you can't agree on the RaI.

I give up!

 insaniak wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
By this definition only a handful of people, at best, who actually wrote the rules could ever use the term RAI.

That's correct.

'RAI' is a frequently mis-used term, and is far too often applied to 'Rules as I Think They Should Be' instead of actually what was intended.

I think the example I gave of 18 boys, a big mek, and a warboss is pretty clear. They all can't fit into the footprint of a battle wagon but the rules say it is allowed to carry that many. So what is supposed to happen when it explodes?

Any models that can't fit are destroyed.

You can call it 'pedantic' if you want, but that's how (from my experience) it's been widely played for the last 3 editions.

Ok so you are saying when a battle wagon goes boom the best I can get is 12 dudes the Mek and the warboss? See picture for reference.



Seems pretty lame to me. I guess I will not be playing you anytime soon. I have never seen it played this way. Different strokes I guess.
Far to pedantic interpretation of the RAW for me. Interpreted to perversion to gain an undo advantage. The game is an abstraction NOT a simulation. How in the hell do you explain why the capacity would be 20 if the model would not even fit that many? Way to specific for my taste. Again I will say stupid stuff like this takes all the fun out of the game. Pretty sure that is not the intention of the game designers.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Remember you just have to touch the area where the Battlewagon was so you could easily fit more on there. Unless you're going but the wholly within the area where the BW was in which case none of your models are (or can ever be) legally placed.

I thought that is what the discussion was. If "wholly within the area" meant I can have part of the base outside the footprint. The way my picture show they are all "wholly within the footprint" if the base just has to touch then yeah all 20 will fit. That is my basic arguement. They are generaly in the area of the wagon.

 insaniak wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Ok so you are saying when a battle wagon goes boom the best I can get is 12 dudes the Mek and the warboss? See picture for reference.

If that's all that fit, then yes. For what it's worth, I have the same problem with my Orks... It's just one of those things.

The game is an abstraction NOT a simulation.

Well, of course it is. In a simulation, we wouldn't have the vehicle just disappearing in a cloud of smoke leaving the unit standing around in the crater. Nor would we have guys dying when they try to climb out of their transport and discover that there is nowhere to go. Or units with jump packs bouncing back off over the horizon when one guy lands on a rock. Or gigantic hover tanks being destroyed when they would deep land on a gretchin.

The game is full of abstractions. This is just one of them, made for convenience and consistency. Ultimately, the guys not fitting into the footprint being destroyed is no more absurd than guys being destroyed when they are forced to disembark and have nowhere to go.

How in the hell do you explain why the capacity would be 20 if the model would not even fit that many?

I would explain it as simply one more example of GW not making their vehicle models big enough, and not stopping to consider the potential consequences of that.

Well sorry I am placing all 20 (or however many survive the explosion). If someone as an issue with that they can find a different opponent. As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better. The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. I guess I hope more people see it my way than yours, or I will run out of opponents to play army men with.

 insaniak wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better.

This is more a case of the model being fine within the rules as they existed when the model was released, but them the rules being changed in a way that hadn't been factored into the model design.

When the battlewagon was released, an Exploded result just made the passengers disembark in the normal manner.

The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. .

This is predicated on your interpretation being the correct one. Assuming that when the rules say 'where the vehicle was' they mean 'where the vehicle was' is not actually less logical than assuming it means 'more or less where the vehicle was'.

And I'm not really setting how that interpretation is any more 'pedantic' than following any other rule. You're only seeing it as overly pedantic because you disagree with it.

So why is there not any language in the rules about how to define where the Vehicle was, or what happens when models don't fit where the vehicle was? Like ther are for emergency disembarkation? Just a oversight I guess. You would think if it was a thing that caused the removal of models it would be more spelled out rather than left to open interpretation.

col_impact wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

How so?

There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.

Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.

If the rules are stupid here then you implement a non-stupid procedure going forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?

I am not making a RAW argument

This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .

The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.

This is pretty much why I think this interpretation is wrong. The rule has no prescriptive way to define the are where the vehicle was, so in your case you drop some dice at the corners, well that is "close" to where the vehicle was but not exactly "where" the vehicle was. So how do you decide if the edge of one models base is violating the edge definition? You really can't, and even if you use the "line" created by connecting the dice, this is still not the exact edge of the vehicle footprint. So in this case it is fairly easy to make errors or "fudge" if a model is going to make it or not. Or what about one of the Necron flying cressent things (is that even a transport, maybe not?) How would that one get defined? A square? In a cressent shape? or what about someone using one of those old era rhino models? Do they lose more guys in an explosion just because the model is smaller? Seems kinda crappy. Or how about a wave serpent it has the 2 jutting out front things, are those counted in the footprint? Just too many questions with the more strict interpretation of the rule. I think is was written vague intentionally as to not have to answer these kind of questions, or negativly affect gameplay because of the artistic decision made when an artist puts together a model or what size model fits in the standard box.

I say dispense with the dice marking the edge, since it is highly inaccurate anyhow, (now the argument is really about whos inaccurate way of model placement is more "right" ) and just place down however many guys survive the explosion in unit coherency. I usually place them in a heap, but you could simply start by placing the first model generally in the middle and work out from there.

I suspect either way it will probably not make a ton of difference to the outcome of the game, I would just not want to be the person forcing someone to remove models because of an overly strict interpretation of the rules. Most of the time if there is ever a question about a rule when I am playing I typically give whatever ruling favors my opponent. I do note it down and check it in more detail later and will probably not play games with that person any more if they are too much of a "rules lawyer" while playing. That kind of game is simply not fun. If you have to spend more than 2 or 3 minutes sorting something out with the rules more than 2x in a game, then the whole flow of the game dies and it becomes un-fun.

In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

col_impact wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation

Well I guess Dark Eldar are getting screwed too. Not in my games! In my games you get to place all 10 if they survive the explosion!