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.

Doomthumbs wrote:Kirsanth, Because the rules for that say any part of the base. Rules for explodes do not. (Technically)

I am not certain I agree with that interpretation--the rules do not need to re-iterate the already established rules for measuring distances.

Doomthumbs wrote: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.

I certainly wouldn't try to play a conga line and would call somebody who did on it on being silly,though that may honestly be the RaW of it. RaW is often quite goofy.

However, I don't see the situation pictured a bending the rules. I would not even question that it if my opponent did it. Reflecting, I think I may have had opponents play it that way in the past. It never even occurred to me in the slightest that it might violation even of the spirit of the rules. I look at that and no part of me sees it as anything but totally reasonable. It's certainly more reasonable than some of the *actual* rules out there, at least in my mind. Who knows maybe I'm just strange. I'm just saying if I ran into the same situation as the OP, I'd give my opponent a nod and a "Smart Move" when I realized I was out of assault range. My reasoning for this I've already explained.

Except that you are giving specific instructions for weapon templates that partially cover the base of a model. You are given permission to include those models that are partially under the template.

If the template rules only said models covered, models partially covered would not be included because you are not given permission to include those models.

In this instance you are told to place the survivors inside the area where the vehicle used to be. You are not given permission to partially place them inside. You are told to place them inside.

Brother Ramses wrote:
In this instance you are told to place the survivors inside the area where the vehicle used to be. You are not given permission to partially place them inside. You are told to place them inside.

Therein lies the ambiguity. They don't define "Inside" in this particular case.

We have a plain English definition of "Inside" which is really kind of vague and subjective in this case, not very helpful.

We have a definition of inside which is established in other rules (but not specifically cited here) and appears rather consistently throughout the rules that care about what is in what. I like using that one because it makes things cohesive.

The problem is there is there is no definition of "Inside" here, that can be definitively pointed to as "Wholly Inside". For some definitions of "Inside" (particularly those used elsewhere in the game) is equivalent to "at least partially inside". In the case where you are using a definition for inside as "At least partially inside" that you are partially outside isn't relevant, since you're still doing what you have permission to do and nothing else.

Ultimately for this to be a shut-and-closed case, we'd either have to have "Inside" as a defined term or have language that clarifies other restrictions beyond being inside". Neither of those things are the case. So we're left to make a reasonable interpretation of what "Inside" means, for me that is what is most consistent with how it is defined elsewhere. Defining "inside" as "Wholly Inside" is not entirely unreasonable either and I can see how it would be intuitive for some people, It's just not the I think makes the most sense.

Its not "inside" its just "where the vehicle used to be". Inside is an added word to the rule, so anything you or I could add to the discussion based on our interpretation of inside is, well, wrong.

More valid to the point is that you're told to put the model where the vehicle was. Area terrain requires models be inside the cover. this rule doesn't require them to be inside, just 'where the vehicle was'. Not where it was and someplace else additionally.
And again, since its not specific, its open to interpretation. But at least interpret the right words.

Doomthumbs wrote:Its not "inside" its just "where the vehicle used to be". Inside is an added word to the rule, so anything you or I could add to the discussion based on our interpretation of inside is, well, wrong.

More valid to the point is that you're told to put the model where the vehicle was. Area terrain requires models be inside the cover. this rule doesn't require them to be inside, just 'where the vehicle was'. Not where it was and someplace else additionally.
And again, since its not specific, its open to interpretation. But at least interpret the right words.

Fair enough, I was speaking too loosely. However "where the vehicle used to be" still boils down to an issue of occupying an area, so "where the vehicle used to be" is functionally equivalent to "Inside" here, ("Inside" is just easier to type).

Ultimately there is some area "Where the vehicle used to be" that a certain entity (The Unit) must occupy. The same rational all still applies, though you wind up with a third possible interpretation.

That the unit must completely and perfectly fill the space occupied by the vehicle, and that placement of units that does not cause them to occupy precisely the same space (and all of the same place) is an illegal placement. Of course that interpretation is silly in the extreme, but it it's one possible way to read it. I only point it out to show how subjective this all is.

Again, since the issue is one of space occupancy I like the interpenetration that most closely matches the other rules for occupying a space, since we don't have definitive wording. It's not the only interpenetration that is valid under the wording, I just think it makes the most sense.

Doomthumbs wrote:Its not "inside" its just "where the vehicle used to be".

So you are measuring the distance between two models, one of which is removed.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:I am not certain I agree with that interpretation--the rules do not need to re-iterate the already established rules for measuring distances.

You're not measuring distances to put them in the space that the vehicle was occupying. The distances are there already, outlined by the vehicle. The rules for measuring between two units say that you
"Use the closest point of their bases as your reference points." Brb page 3 Measuring Distances.

So since measuring distances says use any point on the base, that is so very different from placing the survivors where the vehicle used to be. Since its referencing whole models and not just part of the base, like the measuring rules.

kirsanth wrote:How is this different than measuring distances between 2 units?

Because the rules for measuring between 2 units say to use the closest part of each base (or something similar)

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.

There is a qualifier if you know what the area of the base is. In this case 0.785 inches squared (the whole thing)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which was the point - the rules make no requirement to be entirely within, so if you can measure to the models base, and measure to show that it is inside the footprint, according to the rules you ARE placed within the footprint. Its under the rules for measuring to models.

DR - you have still made up a requirement to be entirely within, and keep repeating the same argument frmo the last thread which was proven wrong. I have already proven you wrong, again, in this thread.

I have not made up any requirement.

The model must be where the vehicle used to be.

0.785 Inches squared is the area of the base. The area of the base must be where the vehicle used to be. If the area of the base, which is 0.785 Inches squared, is not where the vehicle used to be, then you have not followed the rule for needing to be where the vehicle used to be.

By default, area of the base, includes every last bit of the area of the base, to say otherwise is not correct.

Thus Area = the whole area by definition.

How is this proven wrong? Is the area of the base not inclusive of the whole base?

By your logic the area of the base does not include the whole base, which does not make sense to me.

Except that isnt what the rules say. Not at all. That is your fabrication.

there are NO additional restrictions on placing the model "where the vehicle used to be". None. Your "default" is fabricated, by the way - you have neither a linguistic, mathematic or logical reason to back up that statement. None.

If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

DeathReaper wrote:I have not made up any requirement.

Not entirely. . .but then again, the word entirely is not mentioned.


Is the ruler on the table?

Hint: Nothing says "entirely" in the rules or in my question.

Kirsanth - it probably isnt worth it, "we've" been here before and been ducked, avoided, made nonsense of (supported and not supported at the same time was someones answer) and so on.

The same flawed argument was made in previous threads, and the same fabricated requirement was used, despite the poster being entirely unable to provide any justifcation for it (notice the "default" position above, which is a change to the argument but again has entirely no basis in the rules, language or anything else objective, it is fabrication dressed up as fact) - and nothing changed.

I was mostly happy I had the image ready for pasting from the other thread.

Or did I post it here first this time?

Oh well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that isnt what the rules say. Not at all. That is your fabrication.

there are NO additional restrictions on placing the model "where the vehicle used to be". None. Your "default" is fabricated, by the way - you have neither a linguistic, mathematic or logical reason to back up that statement. None.

If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

There is no congruency there at ALL. There is no measuring to be done in this scenario AT ALL. you're placing the survivors (whole models) where the vehicle was and that is it. If the survivors are simultaneously where the vehicle is not, you've broken the rule as it appears on pg 67. I still have yet to see you quote a rule stating otherwise.
This is YOUR fabrication, and I checked the other thread and you made stuff up there, too.
There is no rule for what is being discussed here, so the models have to be placed only where it says they can be placed. Where the vehicle was. and since it mentions nothing of a base, you have to assume its a whole model.
Nothing made up there, except your response, I'm sure.
And since Reds8n has already "suggested" that we keep the tone here civil, I would ask politely that you do the same.

Kirsanth, thats a great picture, but remove the table (pretend its the vehicle). Now put the ruler where the table used to be.
Use the hammer to relieve the headache.

Edit: The bit of string in the picture can be used to wrap this thread up with a nice little bow.

Doomthumbs wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that isnt what the rules say. Not at all. That is your fabrication.

there are NO additional restrictions on placing the model "where the vehicle used to be". None. Your "default" is fabricated, by the way - you have neither a linguistic, mathematic or logical reason to back up that statement. None.

If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

You're placing the survivors (whole models) where the vehicle was and that is it. If the survivors are simultaneously where the vehicle is not, you've broken the rule as it appears on pg 67. I still have yet to see you quote a rule stating otherwise.

Really? The rule says that?
Or does it say to place them where the vehicle was, which you just admitted is included in partial placements, with no mention of them simultaneously being partially not there being illegal if the given requirement is met?

Accusing people who are adding no unwritten requirements to the text of being the people fabricating rules is... an odd position to take.

Gorkamorka wrote:Accusing people who are adding no unwritten requirements to the text of being the people fabricating rules is... an odd position to take.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If I can measure to the model and where the model it was replacing was, and show the two are congruent according to the rules for measuring between two models, i HAVE fulfilled the requirements in the statement.

Yeah, pretty much.

Gorkamorka wrote:Really? The rule says that?
Or does it say to place them where the vehicle was, which you just admitted is included in partial placements, with no mention of them simultaneously being partially not there being illegal if the given requirement is met?

I admitted nothing except saying partial placement is legal is adding stuff to the rule. "Fabricating" Nos calls it.
And then something rude gets said, I'm unsure of how the in between works.

Doomthumbs wrote:Kirsanth, thats a great picture, but remove the table (pretend its the vehicle). Now put the ruler where the table used to be.

If the rules suggested anything similar, I would agree with your point.
I think.

I am somewhat confused by your suggestion, however.
You are suggesting adding layers that are not stated simply to prove an interpretation.

The rules only ask if the models are within the area that was taken by the vehicle.
They do not prevent the model ALSO being outside of the area.

In fact, you are given allowance to measure to and from any part of the base when measuring. There is no requirement for the entire area.

Edits for grammar and spelling.

The fact that the answer needed a qualifyer basically proves my point, however.

Again, there is no measuring taking place.
I'm not the one adding anything. Saying you can partially place them is the adding something. (which I'm not saying, now or ever).
You citing the measuring rules is adding something. "Layers" of made up stuff.

Doomthumbs wrote: Saying you can partially place them is the adding something. (which I'm not saying, now or ever).

The idea that "partially" is adding something, while "entirely" is not is farcical.

DT - then quote them, and prove them. Or retract your unfounded assertion. Your choice.

You also missed the WAS. Again, please retract your false assertion, or prove it true.

So that is two actions you need to take. I'll wait. Amusingly you quote that this thread is to stay civil, then assert false statements, with no backing at all, about a poster. No irony there, none at all.

To sum up: you are asserting a requirement to be "entirely" within, yet none such restriction exists within the rules. I am proposing that you follow exactly the same method as every other instance where you need to find out if you are somewhere - you measure to the base.

One requires making up rules (specifically either adding restrictions, or making up a "default", neither of which has ANY basis in the rules, maths or linguistics), one doesnt.

Edit: seen your later posts (distracted by TV) - no, you are adding the requirement to be "entirely", whereas the statement "within" supports BOTH entirely and partially as qualifiers.

You are restricting by stating only one is valid. This is not supported in the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirsanth - it probably isnt worth it, "we've" been here before and been ducked, avoided, made nonsense of (supported and not supported at the same time was someones answer) and so on.

The same flawed argument was made in previous threads, and the same fabricated requirement was used, despite the poster being entirely unable to provide any justifcation for it (notice the "default" position above, which is a change to the argument but again has entirely no basis in the rules, language or anything else objective, it is fabrication dressed up as fact) - and nothing changed.

No fabricated requirement, no flawed argument. Just trying to get people to understand what area means.

We are dealing with placing the Model/Area of the base where the vehicle used to be.

The area of that rulers base is most definitely not on the table.

The rules state you must put the area of the base where the vehicle used to be. It is clear if one knows what area includes.

It says area, which is 0.785 in. Sq. anything less than 0.785 in. Sq. is not the area of the base, we have to include all parts of said area.

Since we have to include all parts of said area, then all parts of said area must be where the vehicle used to be. This is what the rules tell us to do.

DR wrote:It says area, we have to include all parts of said area.

This is the part you have made up,as no such requirement exists:
- linguistically
- mathematically
- logically

Stop making up rules, mkay?

(we all know what area means. Stop pretending otherwise)

DeathReaper wrote:we have to include all parts of said area.

The rules do not, however, say that regardless of how many times you do.

To turn your argument on its head, how possible is it for each model to be placed so that it can cover the ENTIRE area the transport took up?
That would require the same reading as you are asserting.

Shhh Kirsanth, you're applying Logic....

He's transposing "area" from the definition of a model, nos.

I'm not saying that it says entirely. It doesnt.
But YOU have yet to provide any quoted rule that says that you may place it partially in and still have it qualify as being 'where the vehicle was' as per the rules. Again, that is a convention among rational players, not a rule.
So you're making stuff up, namely quoting the measurement rules as your proof. There is NO MEASURING that is occuring in placing the surviving model where the vehicle was.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:we have to include all parts of said area.

The rules do not, however, say that regardless of how many times you do.

To turn your argument on its head, how possible is it for each model to be placed so that it can cover the ENTIRE area the transport took up?
That would require the same reading as you are asserting.

It says to place the area of the base where the vehicle used to be, it gives you a set area to place models in. (Anywhere where the vehicle used to be)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DR wrote:It says area, we have to include all parts of said area.

This is the part you have made up,as no such requirement exists:
- linguistically
- mathematically
- logically

Stop making up rules, mkay?

(we all know what area means. Stop pretending otherwise)

If you know what area means then why the questions about me making up rules?

Lets look at what the area of a models base includes...

The area is 0.785 in. Sq. anything less than 0.785 in. Sq. is not the area of the base, so the 0.785 in. Sq. must be where the vehicle used to be.

Its clearly defined.
- linguistically
- mathematically
- logically

The area of something would include all parts of said area.

Doomthumbs wrote:I'm not saying that it says entirely. It doesnt.
But YOU have yet to provide any quoted rule that says that you may place it partially in and still have it qualify as being 'where the vehicle was' as per the rules.

The first bit is why you are not correct. The second bit is why you are wrong.

There is not a qualifier on the statement. So noone can show you one.
Since there is not a qualifier on the statement, adding one or assuming one is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
It says to place the area of the base where the vehicle used to be, it gives you a set area to place models in. (Anywhere where the vehicle used to be)
. . .
The area of something would include all parts of said area.

DR - Sigh. You're still making up rules.

Namely you are requiring the ENTIRE area to be within the location, when no such additional restriction exists.

Partially OR Fully ENTIRELY satisfy the singular requirement. You cannot prove that *only* "entire area" is included (as the words are not there) and so, yet again - BOTH "entirely" AND "partially" satisfy the singular requirement.

So again: Your argument is false and requires MAKING UP RULES in order to "work". Oddly enough myself and most of the people reading this (as a wager) dont generally consider making up rules to be a good way to present a rules argument. Just saying - you may want to work on that.

DT - until you retract OR prove your unsupported and false statements you will not get a response.

I'm still not adding. Where the vehicle was is the area it was, not the area it was plus the area of your models inside's base all the way around the vehicle.
Sorry, but this is my last post on the subject until I've gone to drown the pain of explaining this in a bottle.

Ok, you caught me. Its gonna be more like 20 bottles.

Yes you are.

You are adding the word "entirely" in front of "within"

We are saying that, as the word "witihn" is not restricted (it really isnt - the lack of any words is your clue there) then BOTH "entirely" AND "partially" are allowable.

Both yourself and DR are adding the word "entirely" (or in effect doing the same, just dressed differently) to the phrase. This is making rules up.