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.

No that it not my interpretation. 

The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" 

That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.

As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.

How do you place a Space Marine wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by the Rhino before it exploded? The tracks of the Rhino (the only part touching the ground) are not as wide as a 25mm base. In fact can you even come up with a single incidence where it is possible to place a model wholly where its transport used to be?

 FlingitNow wrote:

No that it not my interpretation. 

The rules state "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" 

That does not say partially, so you need every part of a model to fulfill that.

As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.

How do you place a Space Marine wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by the Rhino before it exploded? The tracks of the Rhino (the only part touching the ground) are not as wide as a 25mm base. In fact can you even come up with a single incidence where it is possible to place a model wholly where its transport used to be?

This. Check my previous post at the bottom of the previous page. I agree completely here. It is impossible to put a passenger where a vehicle used to be, because the passenger takes up a smaller 3 dimensional amount of space.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply..

It does apply, you are trying to take wording out of context and twist it to your definition. "Wholly within" and "within" or "in" are applied exactly where GW needs them. Your vehicle blowing up is not one of them.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply..

It does apply, you are trying to take wording out of context and twist it to your definition. "Wholly within" and "within" or "in" are applied exactly where GW needs them. Your vehicle blowing up is not one of them.

Measuring between units does not apply to this situation.

If the void left by the Tank is a non-object, what Rules do we use to Measure to it?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Again that is for measuring, which we are not doing here as there is only one unit and no other object, so it does not apply..

It does apply, you are trying to take wording out of context and twist it to your definition. "Wholly within" and "within" or "in" are applied exactly where GW needs them. Your vehicle blowing up is not one of them.

Measuring between units does not apply to this situation.

Answer the question. How do you place a Space Marine wholly within the 3 dimensional space occupied by the Rhino before it exploded? The tracks of the Rhino (the only part touching the ground) are not as wide as a 25mm base. In fact can you even come up with a single incidence where it is possible to place a model wholly where its transport used to be?

If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.

Do you also claim that a model must be entirely within a ruins to get a cover save?

Fragile wrote:
Do you also claim that a model must be entirely within a ruins to get a cover save?

what does a ruin have to do with an exploded vehicle? not the same situation at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.

So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct?

DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.

So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct?

I think we all should agree that Deathreaper interpreted this rule into impossibile scenerio. RAW, you cannot place passengers where the vehicle used to be. SO...RAI, put the damn squad as best and as reasonable as you can where the vehicle used to be.

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?

RAW, where the vehicle used to be.

Which doesn't answer the question.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.

Since apparently people missed this before...

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Do you also claim that a model must be entirely within a ruins to get a cover save?

what does a ruin have to do with an exploded vehicle? not the same situation at all.

Its exactly the same situation. Your claiming that "wholly within" or "completely in" applies only to measuring.

Then if you can't place them in the case of skimmers what vehicle can you place them for? By the reading of your post, that the models have to be placed where the vehicle was, can you RAW place them for any exploded transport in the game?

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you can not follow that rule the rule that states " Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" you would need a house rule to place models, otherwise the placement is illegal.

That's why i love following YMDC threads. People inevitably come up with "grot gunners can't shoot guns cause they have no ranged weapons to shoot the guns instead of them as written in the Big Holy Bible Rule Book".

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?

RAW, where the vehicle used to be.

Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?

RAW, where the vehicle used to be.

Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.

Just place them hovering in the air. BRB doesn't disallow it!

Most things in 40K are only 2D though.

The only things that are 3D are LoS, measuring distances and vertical unit coherency right ?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?

RAW, where the vehicle used to be.

Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.

He apparently answered it earlier in the thread:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As for skimmers, yes the rules are broken in that instance and would need a house rule for the surviving passengers to be placed.

Since apparently people missed this before...

morgoth wrote:
Most things in 40K are only 2D though.

The only things that are 3D are LoS, measuring distances and vertical unit coherency right ?

I'm going to need a rules quote to support most things are 2D.


Happyjew

That was about skimmers I'm talking about literally any transport.

 koooaei wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?

RAW, where the vehicle used to be.

Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.

Just place them hovering in the air. BRB doesn't disallow it!

Then claim WMS !

We're it anything but an Ork vehicle, I may be persuaded to think it's modelling for advantage.

But Ork vehicles are supposed to be irregular and it stands to reason there would be big ones and small ones. An Ork player I know has battlewagons made out of Land Raiders, which are nowhere near the size / shape of the current model from GW.

Fragile wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, I have a Falcon carrying a squad of Fire Dragons. The Falcon explodes. Where do I place the Fire Dragons - on the table, or hovering in midair?

RAW, where the vehicle used to be.

Answer the question! So you agree your interpretation means that whenever a transport explodes all passengers are removed from play. Is that correct? Yes or No.

Just place them hovering in the air. BRB doesn't disallow it!

Then claim WMS !

But then the models will be taller than the transport...

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.

Loborocket wrote:

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.

The whole point of RAI. Have an exalt!

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.

 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.