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.

Edit: Nvm, I misread :p

Gravmyr wrote:
That is exactly my point. You are willing to ignore what the wording is for one measurement but not for the other two.

Yes, I am. Because one, while restrictive, allows the rules to function, while the other is absurd.

That inherently makes any discussion of placing virtually any model a RAI discussion.

Indeed it does. I thought that was clear from my first post, where I pointed out that this was how I have seen it played for the last 3 editions, rather than claiming that it was RAW.

At that point you need to decide what in the rules allows you to make a decision that will only affect some armies.

Personally, I aim for the decision that requires the least alteration of the rules in order to allow them to function.

Assuming that 'where the vehicle was' means its footprint requires less bending than assuming that it means the vehicle's footprint and an undefined area around it.

Does it require less bending though? If you look at the space a model such as a truck leaves under it and then look at the amount the bases of all the models would take up are they about the same? How about any of the tanks? How about the eldar transports? At the end of the day you are basically penalizing poor scale for some armies. I don't feel that is in the intent of the rules nor the spirit of the game.

 insaniak wrote:

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?

The left foot of the model is where the vehicle was... the right foot is not.

Is the model where the vehicle was?

The left foot of a model is in ruins.. the right foot is not.

Does the model get a cover save?

GW is explicit when they word things that require the model to be "wholly within". Linebreaker and Disembarking. This is not one of those cases.

Gravmyr wrote:
Does it require less bending though?

Yes...?

'Where the vehicle was' should mean 'where the vehicle was'... Not 'near where the vehicle was'.

If you look at the space a model such as a truck leaves under it and then look at the amount the bases of all the models would take up are they about the same? How about any of the tanks? How about the eldar transports? At the end of the day you are basically penalizing poor scale for some armies. I don't feel that is in the intent of the rules nor the spirit of the game.

That's a matter of scale and what you choose to put in the transport, not an issue of rules.

You could as easily ask if we should be allowed to ignore the Deep Strike Mishap rules as they 'penalise' units on large bases worse than units on small ones. The fact that 10 terminators are more likely to mishap than 10 Swooping Hawks isn't a sign that the rules need to be changed. It's just a side-effect of different things in the game being a different size.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
The left foot of the model is where the vehicle was... the right foot is not.

Is the model where the vehicle was?

No. Only a part of the model is where the vehicle was.

GW is explicit when they word things that require the model to be "wholly within". Linebreaker and Disembarking. This is not one of those cases.

No, this is a case of a rule that is just horribly vague.

 insaniak wrote:

No. Only a part of the model is where the vehicle was.

GW is explicit when they word things that require the model to be "wholly within". Linebreaker and Disembarking. This is not one of those cases.

No, this is a case of a rule that is just horribly vague.

It really isnt. Your adding words and putting intent behind your interpretation. A model touching the outline of that transport box is where the transport used to be.

Isn't a matter of rules though? How are you fitting the number of boys on the trukk if they don't fit into the footprint?

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Well sorry I am placing all 20 (or however many survive the explosion). If someone as an issue with that they can find a different opponent. As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better. The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. I guess I hope more people see it my way than yours, or I will run out of opponents to play army men with.

Fragile wrote:
A model touching the outline of that transport box is where the transport used to be.

No, it isn't. It's just nearby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
Isn't a matter of rules though? How are you fitting the number of boys on the trukk if they don't fit into the footprint?

I'm not sure what you mean. There is no requirement to physically fit the models onto the truck, any more than you need to stuff your marines inside their rhino.

That is the point. They have the models in front of them. Looks like we can fit 12 models in it..... but let's write a rule that states it can hold 20...... poor rule writing.

Loborocket wrote:
As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better.

This is more a case of the model being fine within the rules as they existed when the model was released, but them the rules being changed in a way that hadn't been factored into the model design.

When the battlewagon was released, an Exploded result just made the passengers disembark in the normal manner.

The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. .

This is predicated on your interpretation being the correct one. Assuming that when the rules say 'where the vehicle was' they mean 'where the vehicle was' is not actually less logical than assuming it means 'more or less where the vehicle was'.

And I'm not really setting how that interpretation is any more 'pedantic' than following any other rule. You're only seeing it as overly pedantic because you disagree with it.

 insaniak wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
As for GW selling a model that is too small and it affecting the rules interpretations, I suspect the size of the model is based on a merchandising decision of what fit in the standard box and the standard box based on shelf space etc... A bigger model is not going to be made to fit the rules better.

This is more a case of the model being fine within the rules as they existed when the model was released, but them the rules being changed in a way that hadn't been factored into the model design.

When the battlewagon was released, an Exploded result just made the passengers disembark in the normal manner.

The assumption is players will have enough common sense to apply the rules in a logical way rather than an overly pedantic fidely way. .

This is predicated on your interpretation being the correct one. Assuming that when the rules say 'where the vehicle was' they mean 'where the vehicle was' is not actually less logical than assuming it means 'more or less where the vehicle was'.

And I'm not really setting how that interpretation is any more 'pedantic' than following any other rule. You're only seeing it as overly pedantic because you disagree with it.

So why is there not any language in the rules about how to define where the Vehicle was, or what happens when models don't fit where the vehicle was? Like ther are for emergency disembarkation? Just a oversight I guess. You would think if it was a thing that caused the removal of models it would be more spelled out rather than left to open interpretation.

Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.


If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?

Loborocket wrote:
So why is there not any language in the rules about how to define where the Vehicle was, ...

Because the rule is badly written.

So it's left to us to determine for ourselves what makes the most sense within the rules that we are given.

...or what happens when models don't fit where the vehicle was?

We are quite explicitly told what happens to models that can't be placed where the vehicle was. They are removed as casualties.

You would think if it was a thing that caused the removal of models it would be more spelled out rather than left to open interpretation.

Welcome to 40K.

Unfortunately, this sort of loose wording is all too common from GW, and it's made worse by their recently developed mindset that FAQs are bad as they foster a 'cult of personality' following for their studio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?

.
Models, not units. Only one unit fits in the vehicle.

And the answer is 'Because the vehicle is smaller than it should be to carry 20 models' combined with '20 models take up more space on the table than they would if they weren't mounted on big plastic discs'.

 insaniak wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
So why is there not any language in the rules about how to define where the Vehicle was, ...

Because the rule is badly written.

So it's left to us to determine for ourselves what makes the most sense within the rules that we are given.

...or what happens when models don't fit where the vehicle was?

We are quite explicitly told what happens to models that can't be placed where the vehicle was. They are removed as casualties.

You would think if it was a thing that caused the removal of models it would be more spelled out rather than left to open interpretation.

Welcome to 40K.

Unfortunately, this sort of loose wording is all too common from GW, and it's made worse by their recently developed mindset that FAQs are bad as they foster a 'cult of personality' following for their studio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?

.
Models, not units. Only one unit fits in the vehicle.

And the answer is 'Because the vehicle is smaller than it should be to carry 20 models' combined with '20 models take up more space on the table than they would if they weren't mounted on big plastic discs'.

If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well. If you have to invoke wobbly model syndrome and overlap a sliver of the footprint on placement then so be it.

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

How so?

There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

How so?

There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.

Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.

If the rules are stupid here then you implement a non-stupid procedure going forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?

I am not making a RAW argument

col_impact wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

How so?

There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.

Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.

If the rules are stupid here then you implement a non-stupid procedure going forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?

I am not making a RAW argument

This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.

Loborocket wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

How so?

There are two completely different mechanics in play here. The rule that allows them on board the transport doesn't care how big it is. Just how many models the rules say can climb aboard. The rule governing what happens when the vehicle explodes is a completely separate rule that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules for Transport capacity.

Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.

If the rules are stupid here then you implement a non-stupid procedure going forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?

I am not making a RAW argument

This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.

I am a necron player so this never affect me. I just don't want to see an Ork player removing models over a stupid inconsistency in the game. It is stupid and inconsistent for 20 models to fit in a vehicle at one point and not fit in a vehicle at another point.

col_impact wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?

I am not making a RAW argument

So where does GW give a non-rules statement to back up your position? If you're making a HYWPI and not a RAW argument you need to state so and please don't try and attribute it to somebody else.

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If 20 models is given permission to fit into a vehicle by GW then that permission extends to explosions as well.

Can you provide a page number and quote to back that up?

I am not making a RAW argument

So where does GW give a non-rules statement to back up your position? If you're making a HYWPI and not a RAW argument you need to state so and please don't try and attribute it to somebody else.

Huh? Spare us all the hall monitoring. I labeled my argument as not RAW.

The codex clearly indicates that 20 models can fit in a battlewagon, right? By saying "GW" is saying that permission is granted at the official rules level to indeed put 20 models into a battlewagon.

col_impact wrote:
Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.

Logic also says that a guy who is kneeling down could stand up to see over an intervening obstacle. Unfortunately, sometimes the rules fly int he face of logic in the interests of abstraction.

Loborocket wrote:
This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.

Seriously, the continual snide comments are not constructive.

I'll say it again: I'm an Ork player. I have a unit of Nobs with a Warboss and Mek in a Battlewagon. I've played against exactly 3 Ork players in the last 5 years, none of whom did have said unit. So my interpretation here is far more likely to hurt me rather than an opponent.

Sportsmanship isn't an issue here. And 'common sense' is highly variable from player to player. You think it makes more sense to allow the models to be placed. I think it makes more sense to follow the interpretation that requires the least bending of the rules. I don't feel any particular need to insult you for having a different opinion over the best way to play with your toy soldiers, and would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Logic. Unless you are dealing with a double-decker bus, the rapid transition from being in a truck to being not in a truck should not result in casualties from models having no place to be.

Logic also says that a guy who is kneeling down could stand up to see over an intervening obstacle. Unfortunately, sometimes the rules fly int he face of logic in the interests of abstraction.

Loborocket wrote:
This of course assumes the person making the interpretation has some level of common sense as well as a sense of sortsmanship by "allowing" all 20 model to be placed after the explosion.

Seriously, the continual snide comments are not constructive.

I'll say it again: I'm an Ork player. I have a unit of Nobs with a Warboss and Mek in a Battlewagon. I've played against exactly 3 Ork players in the last 5 years, none of whom did have said unit. So my interpretation here is far more likely to hurt me rather than an opponent.

Sportsmanship isn't an issue here. And 'common sense' is highly variable from player to player. You think it makes more sense to allow the models to be placed. I think it makes more sense to follow the interpretation that requires the least bending of the rules. I don't feel any particular need to insult you for having a different opinion over the best way to play with your toy soldiers, and would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

I am all for pure RAW if that's the way people are going to play it through and through. However, once you start intervening, why not just bend the rules here to the point it makes logical sense and not just the merest bending of the rules?

Out of curiosity, how pure RAW do you play?

Who was calling for pure RAW?

The rule is vaguely written, so a certain amount of interpretation is required.
The difference of opinion here is just about how far to take that.

Once you start intervening, why not just bend the rules here to the point it makes logical sense and not just the merest bending of the rules?

Because from my experience, people are more likely to go along with a proposed rule the closer it sticks to where it started.

Your mileage may vary.

col_impact wrote:
Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.

No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.

"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).

On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.

If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?

Because you are trying to apply real life physics to an abstract rules system, this is a mistake, do not do this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.

No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.

"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).

On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.

One model on top of another model in a deployment zone will still both be in a deployment zone. Anyway its not something I would do, only something that I could do in the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?

col_impact wrote:
Because you are trying to apply real life physics to an abstract rules system, this is a mistake, do not do this.

Do you play pure RAW in all aspects of 40k? Unless you say yes then you cannot critique my hang up on this issue.

Like I said, I do not mind playing pure RAW as long as it is pure RAW all the way through and through.

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Things I learned today. I can deploy my jump units, jet pack units, or skimmers directly on top of each other.

No you can not, the rules tell you to deploy in a deployment zone.

"Deployment Zones
Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must
be decided. If you are using a mission, it will have a deployment map that will show you
each player’s deployment zone." (Preparing for battle chapter, Deployment Zones section).

On top of another model is not in the areas where they can be set up.

One model on top of another model in a deployment zone will still both be in a deployment zone. Anyway its not something I would do, only something that I could do in the rules.

Incorrect, the rules are written assuming you are moving and deploying on the battlefield which is terrain.

"The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it."(Preparing for battle chapter, The Battlefield section).

"The battlefield is usually a flat surface on which scenery models are placed and over which the armies fight."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).

"The battlefield is considered to be ‘open ground’ for all rules purposes."(Preparing for battle chapter, The field of War section).

col_impact wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If GW says 20 units can fit in a vehicle then why when it explodes will 20 units suddenly not fit in a vehicle?

col_impact wrote:
Because you are trying to apply real life physics to an abstract rules system, this is a mistake, do not do this.

Do you play pure RAW in all aspects of 40k? Unless you say yes then you cannot critique my hang up on this issue.

Like I said, I do not mind playing pure RAW as long as it is pure RAW all the way through and through.

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.