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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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).

You need to polish up on what is considered to be a Deployment Zone. I can put a model on top of another model and still be "12 inches away from the centerline"

 DeathReaper wrote:


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.

You are simply restating what you said earlier. So I will restate mine. Do you play 100% RAW? If the answer is no, then you have no business taking me to task on something that I think should be changed from dumb to logical. Again, like I said, I have no problem playing RAW as long as it is 100% RAW.

 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?

So was any part of the Vehicle outside of the 3D space it occupied? Are you arguing that all models are auto destroyed when a vehicle explodes?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Are you arguing that all models are auto destroyed when a vehicle explodes?

Since it's quite clear that I'm not, I'm going to assume you're not actually interested in sensible discussion on this.

I stated my opinion on this. There is little to be gained by repeating it.

 insaniak wrote:
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.

The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be". If you take the former interpretation then the only model that could ever be placed was the vehicle itself, heck even a different model of the same vehicle wouldn't workas antennai, guns & gubbins could be positioned slightly differently or tge paint might be slightly thicker or thinner applied or there maybe different glue markers/gaps/green stuff etc.

The later is therefore the only possible RaW interpretation. It fortunately lines up with the likely RaI from vehicle sizes vs transport capacities. So why play anything else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Are you arguing that all models are auto destroyed when a vehicle explodes?

Since it's quite clear that I'm not, I'm going to assume you're not actually interested in sensible discussion on this.

I stated my opinion on this. There is little to be gained by repeating it.

I was replying to a post left after I posted last night so it hadn't refreshed yet. See my 2nd post which is more up to date.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".

Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".

Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.

So where the tracks were touching the table correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".

Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.

So where the tracks were touching the table correct?

I can see this trending towards: "What about Eldar transports?" Their base being a very small area on the table.

Ultimately i'd agree that the rule is too vague. And applying a strict "Area" below the vehicle (Where it touches the ground? 3D Volume where it used to be?) is "not vague enough" for such a vague rule.

To me "placed where the vehicle used to be" is pretty much the same as saying "placed in this general location".

The placed Unit must still abide to certain rules: Can it be placed within 1" of an enemy?
What if an Unit surrounded the Vehicle in Close Combat and explodes it? Your defined "Area" is going to have to be much smaller, and may only fit one or 2 bases...

Well Skimmers have no direct footprint on the table Rhinos have 2 thin tracks that touch the table like most non skimmers or they just have a few wheels touching the ground so by Insaniak's new interpretation everyone always dies whenever a vehicle explodes. Surrounding a vehicle before destroying it does normally kill pretty much everyone if not every one. But to say this is always the case for exploding vehicles even from a distance as Insaniak's new interpretation leads to is fairly ludicrous.

That's not my interpretation.

This quote says otherwise:

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The way it is written has precisely 2 valid ways of interpreting the phrase. Either "precisely where the vehicle used to be" or "particially where the vehicle used to be".

Or 'in the area on the table where the vehicle used to be'.

The only area on the table where the Vehicle was is where the tracks touch the table.

 insaniak wrote:
That's not my interpretation.

I saw that argument coming miles away... But i think the kinder point of it was that your interpretation is very subjective:

How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. If i recall correctly, the Vehicle is removed prior to placing models, you must make a note of size (Top View? Picture?) and then place models after you rolled To Wound on the Unit.
The entire "Explodes" method is missing crucial guidelines your interpretation would need.

 BlackTalos wrote:

How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .

The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .

The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.

Oh, my apologies then, i must have missed when it became HIWPI, for some reason i though we were discussing the RaW: "placed where the vehicle used to be"

Just out of curiosity, but: Would you use the same method for placing a Unit that was embarked in a Night Schythe?
Skipping the "corners" part, how do you count the "central hole"?

Units aren't placed on the table with an exploding Night Scythe, are they? They go into Reserve.

At this point, I think the argument now comes down to a simple question:

If the model being placed is partially inside the footprint (i.e. DeathReaper's #3 in the diagram), does it satisfy the rule "place where the vehicle was." I happen to be in the camp that if one foot is in, it satisfies this requirement. Others claim you need "both feet" to be wholly within the footprint. I cannot imagine you are going to find any rule in the BRB that is going to be that specific to define this clearly. So, for you American Football fans, it comes down to whether you want to use college or pro rules for determining if the model is "in bounds."

The only time I can see "not placeable" models being invoked is if the dead vehicle was surrounded when it exploded. Then the 1" away from enemy models comes into play, creating a very distinctive area where you are allowed to place your models.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .

The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.

This is pretty much why I think this interpretation is wrong. The rule has no prescriptive way to define the are where the vehicle was, so in your case you drop some dice at the corners, well that is "close" to where the vehicle was but not exactly "where" the vehicle was. So how do you decide if the edge of one models base is violating the edge definition? You really can't, and even if you use the "line" created by connecting the dice, this is still not the exact edge of the vehicle footprint. So in this case it is fairly easy to make errors or "fudge" if a model is going to make it or not. Or what about one of the Necron flying cressent things (is that even a transport, maybe not?) How would that one get defined? A square? In a cressent shape? or what about someone using one of those old era rhino models? Do they lose more guys in an explosion just because the model is smaller? Seems kinda crappy. Or how about a wave serpent it has the 2 jutting out front things, are those counted in the footprint? Just too many questions with the more strict interpretation of the rule. I think is was written vague intentionally as to not have to answer these kind of questions, or negativly affect gameplay because of the artistic decision made when an artist puts together a model or what size model fits in the standard box.

I say dispense with the dice marking the edge, since it is highly inaccurate anyhow, (now the argument is really about whos inaccurate way of model placement is more "right" ) and just place down however many guys survive the explosion in unit coherency. I usually place them in a heap, but you could simply start by placing the first model generally in the middle and work out from there.

I suspect either way it will probably not make a ton of difference to the outcome of the game, I would just not want to be the person forcing someone to remove models because of an overly strict interpretation of the rules. Most of the time if there is ever a question about a rule when I am playing I typically give whatever ruling favors my opponent. I do note it down and check it in more detail later and will probably not play games with that person any more if they are too much of a "rules lawyer" while playing. That kind of game is simply not fun. If you have to spend more than 2 or 3 minutes sorting something out with the rules more than 2x in a game, then the whole flow of the game dies and it becomes un-fun.

A strict use of the rule doesn't work.
So no matter what you need to apply a certain amount of rule-bending to make it practical.

Do you try and bend as little as possible, or once you bend one do you bend them all?

From what I can tell, insaniak's approach is placing them within the rough footprint is a practical method, placing them only partially within is a step to far. Bend the rule as little as possible.

Compared to the other approach, since the model cannot strictly be placed where it was, only partially, only part of the model needs to be placed (allowing for mostly outside placement).

I can see either method as valid, the rule isn't clear enough to favour one side.

One method is to place the models on the table and then place the vehicle over the group and then treat the vehicle as a Template and remove any models that are not hit by the Template.

Loborocket wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

How exactly do you define the "Area" in question. .

The most common method I've come across, and the one I use myself, is just to drop dice by each of the vehicle's corners before removing it.

This is pretty much why I think this interpretation is wrong. The rule has no prescriptive way to define the are where the vehicle was, so in your case you drop some dice at the corners, well that is "close" to where the vehicle was but not exactly "where" the vehicle was. So how do you decide if the edge of one models base is violating the edge definition? You really can't, and even if you use the "line" created by connecting the dice, this is still not the exact edge of the vehicle footprint. So in this case it is fairly easy to make errors or "fudge" if a model is going to make it or not. Or what about one of the Necron flying cressent things (is that even a transport, maybe not?) How would that one get defined? A square? In a cressent shape? or what about someone using one of those old era rhino models? Do they lose more guys in an explosion just because the model is smaller? Seems kinda crappy. Or how about a wave serpent it has the 2 jutting out front things, are those counted in the footprint? Just too many questions with the more strict interpretation of the rule. I think is was written vague intentionally as to not have to answer these kind of questions, or negativly affect gameplay because of the artistic decision made when an artist puts together a model or what size model fits in the standard box.

I say dispense with the dice marking the edge, since it is highly inaccurate anyhow, (now the argument is really about whos inaccurate way of model placement is more "right" ) and just place down however many guys survive the explosion in unit coherency. I usually place them in a heap, but you could simply start by placing the first model generally in the middle and work out from there.

I suspect either way it will probably not make a ton of difference to the outcome of the game, I would just not want to be the person forcing someone to remove models because of an overly strict interpretation of the rules. Most of the time if there is ever a question about a rule when I am playing I typically give whatever ruling favors my opponent. I do note it down and check it in more detail later and will probably not play games with that person any more if they are too much of a "rules lawyer" while playing. That kind of game is simply not fun. If you have to spend more than 2 or 3 minutes sorting something out with the rules more than 2x in a game, then the whole flow of the game dies and it becomes un-fun.

I agree on all points. People are just seeing too much in this vague rule. I swear if I ran into a opponent who said my orks that didn't fit into the footprint of a battle wagon were destroyed then I would just walk away from them or just keep playing the game like they are not even there until they whine to a judge and get me kicked out. I would probably even keep playing once the idiot judge sided with my obnoxious opponent. I could easily see them declaring my opponent the winner and then having him remove his models from the table while I am still playing all by myself making pew pew noises. I would only be this obtuse in the face or pure stupidity.

If matters continued like that in future games then I would declare that most vehicles couldn't have passengers survive an explosion. I mean look at those little tracks on the rhino. There is no way you can put a 28mm base fully within the 2D space the tank touched on the table. Maybe a landraider might have a few survives, (unless they were 40mm bases then no way they could fit where the tracks were). Anything on one of the medium sized flying bases (like a wave serpent) would probably have no more than 3 survivors either. You travel into the RAW realms too far and you are just being a jerk plain and simple. Man people really know how to make this game worse than it really is...

I would think that in a rules area that is inconsistent and vague and potentially punishing for some armies much more than other armies that you would take the more generous interpretation so as not to apply a rule with punishing bias against some armies.

In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

Loborocket wrote:
In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation

 insaniak wrote:

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..

As long as any part of the model is where the transport was it can be placed.

Unless your claiming that you can shoot the part of the model that is not in ruins to avoid his cover save.

col_impact wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation

Do you use the base for the 2D footprint or the model? What rule says what the foot print is? If it is what is touching the game board, then we are talking about really small footprints. I think all of this is just too vague and if we go by RAW it is impossible to have any passengers survive an explosion. "Where the vehicle used to be" is a 3D space that is impossible to use as a complete reference for the placement of survivors.


BTW...does anyone want to take a gander at writing a question for this problem so we can all submit it to someone at GW for a FAQ inclusion?

col_impact wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation

Well I guess Dark Eldar are getting screwed too. Not in my games! In my games you get to place all 10 if they survive the explosion!

 Lord Scythican wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation

Do you use the base for the 2D footprint or the model? What rule says what the foot print is? If it is what is touching the game board, then we are talking about really small footprints. I think all of this is just too vague and if we go by RAW it is impossible to have any passengers survive an explosion. "Where the vehicle used to be" is a 3D space that is impossible to use as a complete reference for the placement of survivors.


BTW...does anyone want to take a gander at writing a question for this problem so we can all submit it to someone at GW for a FAQ inclusion?

This is my method which is generous enough so as to not punish any army.

Following the template rules so that any part of the model (and/or base) touched, count as hit?
Just for clarity. Sounds like an acceptable method, given that almost all transports are not to scale with what they carry (you cannot fit 10 marines in the back of a rhino).

 grendel083 wrote:
Following the template rules so that any part of the model (and/or base) touched, count as hit?
Just for clarity. Sounds like an acceptable method, given that almost all transports are not to scale with what they carry (you cannot fit 10 marines in the back of a rhino).

I remember seeing in the gallery that someone modelled Thousand Sons sitting in the back of a rhino. It held four, two on each side sitting down and facing each other. And it was a cramped four at that. Factor in two more for the driver's compartment and you can hold six.

col_impact wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
In all honesty in the Ork Battle Wagon example you will probably lose 4-6 guys in the explosion anyhow, so if 12 fit in the foot print we are only talking about a couple of guys that will get removed due to not being able to be placed. Just with the strict version those 12 basically have to be in base contact with each other so you are much more clumped than if you use the more liberal interpretation and spread out to maximum unit coherency. I actually fall kind of in the middle and basically put them in a blob centered on the explosion because that makes the most sense to me and keeps the game moving.

For probably every other transport it would not matter which way you interpret the rule.

You can only place 5 models after an explosion of a Dark Eldar raider (which holds 10) following the strict interpretation

Do you use the base for the 2D footprint or the model? What rule says what the foot print is? If it is what is touching the game board, then we are talking about really small footprints. I think all of this is just too vague and if we go by RAW it is impossible to have any passengers survive an explosion. "Where the vehicle used to be" is a 3D space that is impossible to use as a complete reference for the placement of survivors.


BTW...does anyone want to take a gander at writing a question for this problem so we can all submit it to someone at GW for a FAQ inclusion?

This is my method which is generous enough so as to not punish any army.

Spoiler:

One method is to place the models on the table and then place the vehicle over the group and then treat the vehicle as a Template and remove any models that are not hit by the Template.

This still doesn't satisfy the people saying they have to be wholly within the template. And this is still coming up with something not in the rules to handle this situation. I like the method personally, but the whole thing needs a FAQ.

 Lord Scythican wrote:
This still doesn't satisfy the people saying they have to be wholly within the template. And this is still coming up with something not in the rules to handle this situation. I like the method personally, but the whole thing needs a FAQ.

Nothing will satisfy those people. They are making up rules that they think should apply.