Is Stealth/Shround determined by distances between Units or distance between models in Nightfight?

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.

**sirlynchmob**

Happyjew wrote:
Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Yes, actually. WHen I move something, I assume it's essentially 5.9" away. For mathematical purposes, anyway. Units start 24.1" apart at deployment, etc.

The issue is the word "exactly", it's much like "perfect". WHen most people say "exactly" they don't actually mean "exactly" they mean "almost exactly".

See? Like I said, semantics. But I guarantee you, no matter how hard you try, you can't ever get anything exactly 24" apart.

And I'll call it dumb if it's dumb. Thee are a lot of dumb arguments here.

If you feel that most of the arguments are dumb, then perhaps YMDC is not the place for you.

on that idea, a sub forum called "how we play it" could be useful. some of the YMDC discussions can go in some really weird directions. so maybe a forum where its less about RAW and more about RAI or RAP?

RAP = rules as played

**liturgies of blood**

Idolator wrote:
Happyjew wrote:

If you feel that most of the arguments are dumb, then perhaps YMDC is not the place for you.

I would say that the majority of arguments are dumb. In general, not just here.

Here it may even be more prevalent. We are, after all, discussing how our dolls imaginarily shoot at one another.

I've accepted that premise and spend plenty of time making sure that my dolls are as pretty as I can make them.

His argument was, technicaly, valid. All we ever discuss in this forum are technicalities.

The purpose of the forum is to tease out what is written in the rules. Nothing more nothing less. If you don't like that just don't engage.

**Idolator**

liturgies of blood wrote:
Idolator wrote:
Happyjew wrote:

If you feel that most of the arguments are dumb, then perhaps YMDC is not the place for you.

I would say that the majority of arguments are dumb. In general, not just here.

Here it may even be more prevalent. We are, after all, discussing how our dolls imaginarily shoot at one another.

I've accepted that premise and spend plenty of time making sure that my dolls are as pretty as I can make them.

His argument was, technicaly, valid. All we ever discuss in this forum are technicalities.

The purpose of the forum is to tease out what is written in the rules. Nothing more nothing less. If you don't like that just don't engage.

Never said that I didn't like it. In fact, I declared that I had accepted it. I'm in! Doesn't change the fact that most arguments are dumb. Ever seen two teenage girls do the whole Team Jacob vs Team Edward argument?

We're not solving the Worlds problems here. I am always aware that these arguments are frivolous in a greater context. Nothing we discuss here is gonna feed the hungry.

**Pyrian**

liturgies of blood wrote:
The purpose of the forum is to tease out what is written in the rules. Nothing more nothing less.

That's not true. See Tenets of You Make Da Call, for instance, #4:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

**liturgies of blood**

Pyrian wrote:
liturgies of blood wrote:
The purpose of the forum is to tease out what is written in the rules. Nothing more nothing less.
That's not true. See Tenets of You Make Da Call, for instance, #4:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

No I stand by that statement.
RAW- exactly what is in the rules.
HYWPI- how you differ from the rules to make the game run better

In both cases you need to know what the rules say.

**Pyrian**

1) You can totally come up with and even agree upon HYWPl solutions without being sure what the exact RaW is.

2) I don't see how you can simultaneously "stand by" a statement of "nothing more" while adding more. You're not standing by your statement, you're contradicting it.

**liturgies of blood**

Pyrian wrote:
1) You can totally come up with and even agree upon HYWPl solutions without being sure what the exact RaW is.

2) I don't see how you can simultaneously "stand by" a statement of "nothing more" while adding more. You're not standing by your statement, you're contradicting it.

1) If you want to play the game with others you'll need to know the rules and how what you're playing is different from the brb. Yes you can make something up and ignore the rules but not if you want to go to a tournament or play with those that use different house rules.

2) It's called clarification.