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.

Two units are setup wholly within the deployment line of a Dawn of War deployment zone directly across from each other.

The turn player's model has a weapon that has a 24" range.

Can the Turn Player's model shoot the enemy model?

I am currently in the 'No' category right now. As the target must be within 24" and the target is slightly farther away than 24" but there are some that think "within" includes the absolute number.

You are correct. If you were within 24" range, one of the models would logically have to be slightly outside their deployment zone and so deployed illegally.

This is the same reason if you deploy using a rule that puts you 9" from enemy models then the absolute minimum charge roll you will need (not including any modifiers) is a 9.

Within does include the absolute number:

Q: What does within 1" mean? Does it mean any distance up to 1", or does it mean any distance up to and including 1"?
A: It means any distance up to and including 1".

However, as the units must be deployed more than 24” apart (by virtue of having to have 24” between armies, they must be slightly over 24” to start with) there’s no way they could stand still and shoot into the other DZ with a 24” range weapon.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Within does include the absolute number:

Q: What does within 1" mean? Does it mean any distance up to 1", or does it mean any distance up to and including 1"?
A: It means any distance up to and including 1".

However, as the units must be deployed more than 24” apart (by virtue of having to have 24” between armies, they must be slightly over 24” to start with) there’s no way they could stand still and shoot into the other DZ with a 24” range weapon.

When there is 24" no mans land, and both units are deployed right at their deployment zone edge they are 24" apart, and can shoot each other with 24" range weapons.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Within does include the absolute number:

Q: What does within 1" mean? Does it mean any distance up to 1", or does it mean any distance up to and including 1"?
A: It means any distance up to and including 1".

However, as the units must be deployed more than 24” apart (by virtue of having to have 24” between armies, they must be slightly over 24” to start with) there’s no way they could stand still and shoot into the other DZ with a 24” range weapon.

When there is 24" no mans land, and both units are deployed right at their deployment zone edge they are 24" apart, and can shoot each other with 24" range weapons.

Yeah. This is accurate. HOWEVER... unless each model has a corresponding target model EXACTLY opposite them and EXACTLY up against the deployment line, I think you'll find that the majority of shooters won't actually have a target within range. In practice, MAYBE a couple of models will get to shoot, but probably most won't.

For context, if the target model is offset by even 1mm, then it's actually 24.00003" away, which is not within 24".

If that becomes issue deploy 0.01mm away. No more issue

In practice unless both are h2h units one is further back anyway

tneva82 wrote:
If that becomes issue deploy 0.01mm away. No more issue

In practice unless both are h2h units one is further back anyway

Yeah. As a matter of principle, I always deploy back a little. If you both have 24" range comes, force your opponent to move into range to shoot you.

As stated, if you deploy the models literally to the atom exactly 24" away from each other they can shoot each other.

Since this isn't actually physically possible due to uncertainties at the quantum level, and takes a bit of a non-thinking opponent to deploy in such a manner instead of deploying 0.0000001" from the edge, it's a non issue.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Within does include the absolute number:

Q: What does within 1" mean? Does it mean any distance up to 1", or does it mean any distance up to and including 1"?
A: It means any distance up to and including 1".

However, as the units must be deployed more than 24” apart (by virtue of having to have 24” between armies, they must be slightly over 24” to start with) there’s no way they could stand still and shoot into the other DZ with a 24” range weapon.

When there is 24" no mans land, and both units are deployed right at their deployment zone edge they are 24" apart, and can shoot each other with 24" range weapons.

Ah fair enough.

That makes sense with how the charge range after deep strike works actually. Because exactly 9" would count as within 9", and therefore deployed illegally.

p5 is correct. Dawn of War/Hammer and Anvil/Vanguard Strike has no-man's land of 24" and allows deployment outside of it.

If both opponents have deployed their units exactly at the line of no-man's land, you are exactly 24" away from each other, thus are in range for 24" weapons.

 skchsan wrote:
p5 is correct. Dawn of War/Hammer and Anvil/Vanguard Strike has no-man's land of 24" and allows deployment outside of it.

If both opponents have deployed their units exactly at the line of no-man's land, you are exactly 24" away from each other, thus are in range for 24" weapons.

Important to state that you really need the specific models to be exactly 24" apart. You can deploy both UNITS right on the line and across from each other and not actually have a single pair of models within 24" of each other. This is one of those things that is theoretically possible, but practically unlikely. It's not enough to just say "we both deployed on the line, so all my guys can shoot you". Most of your dudes probably won't have a shot.

Indeed. Hence my reductive-yet-practical summary instead of a thread of pedantry. Sigh.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Hence my reductive-yet-practical summary instead of a thread of pedantry. Sigh.

Yes, how unfortunate it is that you have suffered so.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Hence my reductive-yet-practical summary instead of a thread of pedantry. Sigh.

I mean... you were also objectively wrong. "However, as the units must be deployed more than 24” apart (by virtue of having to have 24” between armies, they must be slightly over 24” to start with) there’s no way they could stand still and shoot into the other DZ with a 24” range weapon." This is incorrect. You CAN shoot into the opposing deployment zone if you both have models exactly opposite each other.

There is no requirement to deploy more than 24" apart. If two models are deployed exactly opposite each other and exactly on the deployment line, they will be exactly 24" apart, which is considered to be within 24".

 Kriswall wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Hence my reductive-yet-practical summary instead of a thread of pedantry. Sigh.

If two models are deployed exactly opposite each other and exactly on the deployment line, they will be exactly 24" apart, which is considered to be within 24".

Only in the theoretical abstract. In reality it is not physically possible to place a model exactly at that point, because a discrete point to precisely locate matter like that doesnt exist.

Unless your opponent agrees to count it.

Indeed. As we don’t live in the theoretical abstract I stand by everything I posted. This forum is down the toilet lately in terms of utility, given the amount of wellactuallyism and “objectively wrong” silliness. I tend to exclude the practically physically impossible from things I worry about in games. ;-)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. As we don’t live in the theoretical abstract I stand by everything I posted. This forum is down the toilet lately in terms of utility, given the amount of wellactuallyism and “objectively wrong” silliness. I tend to exclude the practically physically impossible from things I worry about in games. ;-)

Sure... but I'd rather have someone explain what is actually happening than have to skim through posts featuring melodramatic, snobbish "Sigh" comments. I guess we're looking for different things here.

I'd also say that as the measurements are just as impossible to precisely nail down as the deployment placing, it's entirely possible for two players to deploy models, measure and then agree that those models are right at that 24" mark. That's not a theoretical abstract. This is something that can absolutely happen in practical, real world gaming situations.

 Kriswall wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. As we don’t live in the theoretical abstract I stand by everything I posted. This forum is down the toilet lately in terms of utility, given the amount of wellactuallyism and “objectively wrong” silliness. I tend to exclude the practically physically impossible from things I worry about in games. ;-)

Sure... but I'd rather have someone explain what is actually happening than have to skim through posts featuring melodramatic, snobbish "Sigh" comments. I guess we're looking for different things here.

I'd also say that as the measurements are just as impossible to precisely nail down as the deployment placing, it's entirely possible for two players to deploy models, measure and then agree that those models are right at that 24" mark. That's not a theoretical abstract. This is something that can absolutely happen in practical, real world gaming situations.

Absolutely agree with this whole post.

Let me know when it happens. I agree its theoretically possible, as evidenced by my first post. And equally as it won’t ever happen the rest of said post.

My sigh was of frustration at some of the silliness in the forum in general, not snobbery. Do bore off with that - it makes you no better than my post you’re attacking. Let’s all get back on topic instead of ad hominising. A forum that deals with how the rules are played and interpreted is useful. Let’s try and keep posts in that vein ongoing. I’ll try and do better. You do the same.

 Kriswall wrote:
That's not a theoretical abstract. This is something that can absolutely happen in practical, real world gaming situations.

It is an abstract, in that it's a physical impossibility.

Obviously if both players consent then you can treat it as exact 24", but that is a much higher burden than within 24" which you can practically demonstrate.

Models with round bases would have to be exactly opposite to each other to be 24" away. Any deviation to this will leave them out of range.

 Stux wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's not a theoretical abstract. This is something that can absolutely happen in practical, real world gaming situations.

It is an abstract, in that it's a physical impossibility.

Obviously if both players consent <that one of them deployed illegally> then you can treat it as exact 24", but that is a much higher burden than within 24" which you can practically demonstrate.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's not a theoretical abstract. This is something that can absolutely happen in practical, real world gaming situations.

It is an abstract, in that it's a physical impossibility.

Obviously if both players consent <that one of them deployed illegally> then you can treat it as exact 24", but that is a much higher burden than within 24" which you can practically demonstrate.

I don't think most of the people in this thread understand what impossibility means.

Why would one of the players have to have deployed illegally? If both players deploy exactly on the line and exactly opposite each other, they will be exactly 24" apart and therefore within 24" of each other. I keep seeing people say this is a "physical impossibility". That's false. It's entirely possible.

Several factors are at play here. Is a player likely to deploy exactly on the line... down to the molecule? No. Is he just as likely to deploy over the line as he is to deploy behind the line assuming that his intention is to deploy on the line? I would say yes. If a player then measures the distance and sees it as being too close to call, might they just agree that because the intention was to deploy at 24" and the measurement seems to be right at 24" that they'll just agree that the models are at 24" and therefore within 24" of each other? Again, yes.

So... this situation is both theoretically possible AND practically possible. I feel like a lot of people are saying you can't deploy the models with precision, but you can measure with precision. Neither activity is particularly precise and the variances can easily cancel each other out.

In any case, just talk to your opponent. I can't imagine that they'll bicker about molecular precision and what is theoretically possible. They'll probably just say 'sure, but that means I can shoot you as well. hope you get that first turn."

 Kriswall wrote:

I don't think most of the people in this thread understand what impossibility means.

Why would one of the players have to have deployed illegally?

Because of how physical matter works. It is not physically possible to place anything at an absolutely exact position, because absolutely exact positions do not exist. You can be extremely close but never exact. Usually in the game the requirement is just to be within a distance, which is easy. Being exactly at a distance, however, is impossible.

One micron left or right makes those models not exactly 24” apart. This is why people are saying it’s practically impossible, because in practice it is.

 Stux wrote:

Because of how physical matter works. It is not physically possible to place anything at an absolutely exact position, because absolutely exact positions do not exist. You can be extremely close but never exact. Usually in the game the requirement is just to be within a distance, which is easy. Being exactly at a distance, however, is impossible.

So you're saying that you think it is impossible to play any scenario where you're instructed to place two markers on the table X" apart? That's no even getting into the number of craft projects that you're claiming are impossible to do, since they specify spacing elements a certain distance away from each other.

The claim that this can't be done during earlier editions, or would be implausible during previous editions, rested on the fact that it's not likely to happen without measuring.

If you're playing an edition of 40k with premeasuring, then it is possible to position models 24" away from other models.

If two models are within 24" range of each other without either model moving, then someone cheated/deployed incorrectly.

 solkan wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Because of how physical matter works. It is not physically possible to place anything at an absolutely exact position, because absolutely exact positions do not exist. You can be extremely close but never exact. Usually in the game the requirement is just to be within a distance, which is easy. Being exactly at a distance, however, is impossible.

So you're saying that you think it is impossible to play any scenario where you're instructed to place two markers on the table X" apart? That's no even getting into the number of craft projects that you're claiming are impossible to do, since they specify spacing elements a certain distance away from each other.

The claim that this can't be done during earlier editions, or would be implausible during previous editions, rested on the fact that it's not likely to happen without measuring.

If you're playing an edition of 40k with premeasuring, then it is possible to position models 24" away from other models.

Only if, as I did state above, both players consent to counting it as an exact placement. Then it's fine.

I dont know why you're bringing craft projects into it. Yeah, it's impossible to cut something to exactly 10cm. Doesnt mean you cant get close enough to do the job.

I think we have a definition problem here:

It is "physically impossible" to place the models exactly 24" apart. We lack the tools necessary to measure that and the precision to move the distances necessary to make this happen.

It is "practically possible" to do so, since all that requires is for both players to agree that they have reached a sufficient level of precision for the two models to be "exactly" 24" apart.

No, it’s not practically possible, but you can choose to agree otherwise. Agreeing a distance is different to reality is not the same thing as being practically possible. It’s an agreement to speed things up, I guess, like saying “these guys are 9.X” away” when teleporting in, so everyone is clear on a charge distance. We could probably do with less hair-splitting and attempted defining in this thread and more acknowledgment of basic physics and gaming conventions. If everyone tries to redefine we get nowhere!

- It’s physically and practically impossible to place models *exactly* 24” apart. That’s just physics.
- It is possible to agree otherwise by mutual consent, for whatever reason.
- It’s unlikely to ever come up. If it does, as it’s physically impossible you’ll need to be having a conversation with your opponent to agree something the rules don’t cover anyway. It’s your game.
- That’s all there is, really.