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.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Does the rule that I can always check ANY distance at ANY time mean nothing to you?

You're still missing a rule stating where you measure to.
Models, vehicles, buildings - these all state what you measure to/from.
What rule are you using?

so you can't measure to objectives? the table edge?

Both are defined points that you can measure to. Table Edge is quite literally the edge of the table.

if the only point of contention is where to measure to, then we can agree before the game starts
As my hand is holding the tape measure, that would be a good point
the tip of the nose is often referenced
or my big toe for those with the base hangup.

So to answer my question, no there is no rule. You're suggesting to quite literally "make it up".
This isn't even slightly RAW.
You should move your argument to "Proposed Rules" not YMDC.

Not quite, RAW is closest model to the player suffers the wound.

" are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"

Apparently that rule is something you thini you can ignore. Any chance you can find a rule showing where your base is? Yoyu dont have one?

Argument refuted, thanks for conceding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
" are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"

Apparently that rule is something you thini you can ignore. Any chance you can find a rule showing where your base is? Yoyu dont have one?

Argument refuted, thanks for conceding.

so you imagined that since you don't agree with the smallest point of my argument you refuted my actual argument. straw man much?

Well as you didn't present an argument for your case we'll call it a draw. As you have no argument to refute.

So RAW: inconclusive
Discuss with your opponent on how to handle it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Not quite, RAW is closest model to the player suffers the wound.

That isn't RAW. Not at all.
The rules never mention player, so you can't claim that is "as written".
And there is still no rule regarding where on the player you measure from.
This remains a "Proposed Rule".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Discuss with your opponent on how to handle it.

That I will agree on.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
" are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"

Apparently that rule is something you thini you can ignore. Any chance you can find a rule showing where your base is? Yoyu dont have one?

Argument refuted, thanks for conceding.

so you imagined that since you don't agree with the smallest point of my argument you refuted my actual argument.

By "the smallest part" you mean "quite a crucial requirement you are hoping people will ignore, as it totally undermines your argument

sirlynchmob wrote:straw man much?

Wow, no. NOt a strawman. Here, have a look at this quick article to let you know the difference between what you think a strawman argument is, and what it ACTUALLY is.

sirlynchmob wrote:Well as you didn't present an argument for your case we'll call it a draw.

Erm, you made a claim (you can measure to yourself) that you are then required to present a case for. You tried, but that argument was refuted (and no, not the tiniest part - quite a crucial part; you can measure, but have no reference point you are allowed to use, meaning you cannot come up with a distance. Meaning your argument fails. Not tricky) and the status quo is preserved. You cannot measure to your big toe, meaning your distance is still "unknown", meaning you MUST use random allocation.

sirlynchmob wrote: As you have no argument to refute.

I dont have to have one - you are the one making a claim, and that claim was refuted.

sirlynchmob wrote:So RAW: inconclusive

Wrong, the source is still unknown / cannot be determined / cannot be measured to (each one of these HAS been proven, despite your attempts at blustering otherwise) meaning you fall back on Random Allocation, as the rulebook REQUIRES you to do.

RAW: Conclusive. Random Allocation.

Find some rules otherwise, some that actually exist this time.

sirlynchmob wrote:Discuss with your opponent on how to handle it.

Only if you wish to change the rules, or if it realy wont make a difference. Claiming you dont have to take off the 1 wound left painboy, as you "know" which is the closest model just after randomly picking the painboy, is unlikely to go down well though.

This went off the tracks a while ago. I think about the time the discussion started seriously considering whether a person was the source for a wound.