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.

Question:

If we take DeathReaper's diagram and now say the square is ruins.... Would model #3 be considered in ruins?

If area terrain still existed, would model #3 still be in area terrain?

If I have a portion of my base touching the footprint of the removed vehicle, I am where the model used to be. Yes, I am also not where the model used to be as well, but I have fulfilled the rule as stated. There is nothing saying I cannot be outside the footprint.

Yes those guys can get in a Battlewagon and actually those guys can be legally placed they do not have to be placed wholly within the foot print as that interpretation leads to no models being able to be placed (you'd know this if you bothered to read the thread before commenting).

You can know what RaI to a reasonable level without being the author. RaW is no more knowable than RaI if you're talking absolutes. Rules as Interpreted just means "Rules I made up" and trying to use those rules in a game will lead to far more arguments than using RaW. How you play the game in your group is up to you and your group when playing against someone you don't know trying to play as close to RaI as possible is usually the best way to avoid arguments and using RaW as a tie breaker if you can't agree on the RaI.

 Green is Best! wrote:
Question:
If we take DeathReaper's diagram and now say the square is ruins.... Would model #3 be considered in ruins?

Yes, Page 108 - the bold text.

Yes, building a model to avoid a disadvantage is the definition of modeling for advantage.
There's no rules against this, just the community frowning on it. It'd be considered cheating at many competitive events.

What is definition of the model's location?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes those guys can get in a Battlewagon and actually those guys can be legally placed they do not have to be placed wholly within the foot print as that interpretation leads to no models being able to be placed (you'd know this if you bothered to read the thread before commenting).

You can know what RaI to a reasonable level without being the author. RaW is no more knowable than RaI if you're talking absolutes. Rules as Interpreted just means "Rules I made up" and trying to use those rules in a game will lead to far more arguments than using RaW. How you play the game in your group is up to you and your group when playing against someone you don't know trying to play as close to RaI as possible is usually the best way to avoid arguments and using RaW as a tie breaker if you can't agree on the RaI.

I give up!

Loborocket wrote:
By this definition only a handful of people, at best, who actually wrote the rules could ever use the term RAI.

That's correct.

'RAI' is a frequently mis-used term, and is far too often applied to 'Rules as I Think They Should Be' instead of actually what was intended.

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?

Any models that can't fit are destroyed.

You can call it 'pedantic' if you want, but that's how (from my experience) it's been widely played for the last 3 editions.

 insaniak wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
By this definition only a handful of people, at best, who actually wrote the rules could ever use the term RAI.

That's correct.

'RAI' is a frequently mis-used term, and is far too often applied to 'Rules as I Think They Should Be' instead of actually what was intended.

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?

Any models that can't fit are destroyed.

You can call it 'pedantic' if you want, but that's how (from my experience) it's been widely played for the last 3 editions.

Ok so you are saying when a battle wagon goes boom the best I can get is 12 dudes the Mek and the warboss? See picture for reference.



Seems pretty lame to me. I guess I will not be playing you anytime soon. I have never seen it played this way. Different strokes I guess.
Far to pedantic interpretation of the RAW for me. Interpreted to perversion to gain an undo advantage. The game is an abstraction NOT a simulation. How in the hell do you explain why the capacity would be 20 if the model would not even fit that many? Way to specific for my taste. Again I will say stupid stuff like this takes all the fun out of the game. Pretty sure that is not the intention of the game designers.

Remember you just have to touch the area where the Battlewagon was so you could easily fit more on there. Unless you're going but the wholly within the area where the BW was in which case none of your models are (or can ever be) legally placed.

Is there a rule which prevents you from jumbling bases on top of each other? If we are being pedantic . . .

col_impact wrote:
Is there a rule which prevents you from jumbling bases on top of each other? If we are being pedantic . . .

Lol, yes there is.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Remember you just have to touch the area where the Battlewagon was so you could easily fit more on there. Unless you're going but the wholly within the area where the BW was in which case none of your models are (or can ever be) legally placed.

I thought that is what the discussion was. If "wholly within the area" meant I can have part of the base outside the footprint. The way my picture show they are all "wholly within the footprint" if the base just has to touch then yeah all 20 will fit. That is my basic arguement. They are generaly in the area of the wagon.

Loborocket wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Remember you just have to touch the area where the Battlewagon was so you could easily fit more on there. Unless you're going but the wholly within the area where the BW was in which case none of your models are (or can ever be) legally placed.

I thought that is what the discussion was. If "wholly within the area" meant I can have part of the base outside the footprint. The way my picture show they are all "wholly within the footprint" if the base just has to touch then yeah all 20 will fit. That is my basic arguement. They are generaly in the area of the wagon.

The only person arguing this bowed out a page or so ago. Honestly there is not much keeping this alive.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Is there a rule which prevents you from jumbling bases on top of each other? If we are being pedantic . . .

Lol, yes there is.

Really? Can you point me to it? I was having trouble finding it.

Loborocket wrote:
Ok so you are saying when a battle wagon goes boom the best I can get is 12 dudes the Mek and the warboss? See picture for reference.

If that's all that fit, then yes. For what it's worth, I have the same problem with my Orks... It's just one of those things.

The game is an abstraction NOT a simulation.

Well, of course it is. In a simulation, we wouldn't have the vehicle just disappearing in a cloud of smoke leaving the unit standing around in the crater. Nor would we have guys dying when they try to climb out of their transport and discover that there is nowhere to go. Or units with jump packs bouncing back off over the horizon when one guy lands on a rock. Or gigantic hover tanks being destroyed when they would deep land on a gretchin.

The game is full of abstractions. This is just one of them, made for convenience and consistency. Ultimately, the guys not fitting into the footprint being destroyed is no more absurd than guys being destroyed when they are forced to disembark and have nowhere to go.

How in the hell do you explain why the capacity would be 20 if the model would not even fit that many?

I would explain it as simply one more example of GW not making their vehicle models big enough, and not stopping to consider the potential consequences of that.

Except your example fails the same test that DR's did. There is no requirement to be wholly or completely within that footprint.

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Is there a rule which prevents you from jumbling bases on top of each other? If we are being pedantic . . .

Lol, yes there is.

Really? Can you point me to it? I was having trouble finding it.

Still looking for a rule that says I can't jumble bases on top of each other. Also, is there anything preventing me from stacking a Land Raider on top of another Land Raider?

col_impact wrote:
Still looking for a rule that says I can't jumble bases on top of each other.

'Models in the Way' in 'The Movement Phase' section of the rulebook. The base is a part of the model.

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Still looking for a rule that says I can't jumble bases on top of each other.

'Models in the Way' in 'The Movement Phase' section of the rulebook. The base is a part of the model.

Okay, fair enough. Now does placing count as moving? At this point I am just doing this as a pedantic exercise. Not claiming anything.

Col_Impact,
If you do deploy Models on top of each other keep in mind that it will be forbidden from moving. I, personally, despise the Vertical Movement Rules as they are nothing more then a hack-and-paste job from 6th Editions Ruin Rules and do not fit into measuring all Vertical Movements at all. As it was originally designed for Ruins, it is not surprising that the they only work for Models Moving vertically up and down floors of a Ruin, but when you apply it to something like a Hill or a Model standing on top of a Land Raider....

Well, now we have to trace that movement through another Model, and what is the Rule about moving through another Model?

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
If you do deploy Models on top of each other keep in mind that it will be forbidden from moving. I, personally, despise the Vertical Movement Rules as they are nothing more then a hack-and-paste job from 6th Editions Ruin Rules and do not fit into measuring all Vertical Movements at all. As it was originally designed for Ruins, it is not surprising that the they only work for Models Moving vertically up and down floors of a Ruin, but when you apply it to something like a Hill or a Model standing on top of a Land Raider....

Well, now we have to trace that movement through another Model, and what is the Rule about moving through another Model?

Lol. Jump units could get untangled.

col_impact wrote:
Okay, fair enough. Now does placing count as moving? At this point I am just doing this as a pedantic exercise. Not claiming anything.

Do you want your models stuck together for the entire game? Because you'd have to move or pivot through another model if you overlap them.

Jet-Pack and Skimmers as well, hey... it could be a use for that obscure Skimmer Rule about sliding off top of other Units!

Fragile wrote:
Except your example fails the same test that DR's did. There is no requirement to be wholly or completely within that footprint.

You have to place the models where the vehicle was.

Was any part of the vehicle outside the vehicle's footprint?

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Okay, fair enough. Now does placing count as moving? At this point I am just doing this as a pedantic exercise. Not claiming anything.

Do you want your models stuck together for the entire game? Because you'd have to move or pivot through another model if you overlap them.

Given a choice between models that are killed outright and models that can't move, I take models that can't move every time.

So they can be killed a few turns later because they're siting ducks?

 Ghaz wrote:
So they can be killed a few turns later because they're siting ducks?

I didn't say it was a great choice but are you telling me it's not better than killed outright?

@insaniak The rule does not use footprint. It states where the vehicle was. If you read that as only where the two dimensions cover you are not following the rule. Why is it not ok to be outside the footprint but ok to be somewhere the vehicle was not, such as over the roof or touching the ground where no part of the vehicle does?

Gravmyr wrote:
@insaniak The rule does not use footprint. It states where the vehicle was.

Yes... and was the vehicle anywhere that the vehicle wasn't?

Why is it not ok to be outside the footprint but ok to be somewhere the vehicle was not, such as over the roof or touching the ground where no part of the vehicle does?

Because assuming that 'where the vehicle was' only includes those spots where the vehicle was physically touching the table makes it largely impossible for any model to ever escape an exploded vehicle?

That is exactly my point. You are willing to ignore what the wording is for one measurement but not for the other two. That inherently makes any discussion of placing virtually any model a RAI discussion. At that point you need to decide what in the rules allows you to make a decision that will only affect some armies.