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.

 Desubot wrote:

greytalon666 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

greytalon666 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
If you move on from the table at 0" and go exactly 36" to the opponents edge. you would be exactly 12" Away from their table edge no?
you need to be within it.
How can you possibly argue that?

Because within in doesn't mean physically within. It means the closest point of my base to whatever I'm measuring to is X inches away or less. If something is EXACTLY 12 inches away from the closest point of my model, then I'm WITHIN 12 inches of it.

You wouldn't be with in 12 because you are AT 12

These are two pretty important distinctions.

Not according to measuring distances in the BRB. from page ten. There are exactly FIVE inches between the closest point of a marine and the closest point of a truck. Those models are WITHIN five inches of each other. NOT *AT, but NOT WITHIN* five inches. WITHIN five inches.

Well then citing the book, it seems to be kosher if not entirely slowed since you are not "in" 12" though you are citing rules for measuring between models.

Really? Those are the rules for measuring DISTANCES. At least put in the bare minimum of effort of going back to where these rules were already quoted if you can't be arsed to check your BRB. Seriously, this is the rules sub forum, maybe you should CHECK SAID fething rules first before making baseless claims - especially if people already researched those. Back under your bridge, seriously.

@Wallur I still don't see it - it says "from the edge of the table" - which is clear - and then simply explains why you do that - "as if they had been positioned just off the board". I think what they wanted to prevent is that you place the model "50% on the table"- so they clarify that you just measure from the edge, not from wherever you want - e.g. put a 3 inch base 2.9 inches on the table and then start measuring from the front.I'd say that would be the obvious abuse which they wanted to prevent, not start a discussion about atoms.

*edit*

Well, just to end this from my perspective - HIWPI is "start measuring at the edge, if you move 36 inches you're now 12 inches away from the other border" based on
a) this pretty obviously being the RAI,
b) it being supported by the RAW and
c) even if you take the "0.00...1 inches" argument as equal, it's the interpretation that is much more intuitive to use and explain - imho.

When I entered my units from reserve I measured from the edge, like it says... And the only moment that would actually matter is if the game is tight and each single point counts to determine a draw, loss or victory, otherwise I'd just roll.

If it were a tournament, there would be an authority that will have the last word.

Since I play friendly games and we use whatever we have as a table, lately half ping-pong table that is 60" long and moving 18"+24" wont be happening.

Wallur wrote:
When I entered my units from reserve I measured from the edge, like it says... And the only moment that would actually matter is if the game is tight and each single point counts to determine a draw, loss or victory, otherwise I'd just roll.

If it were a tournament, there would be an authority that will have the last word.

Since I play friendly games and we use whatever we have as a table, lately half ping-pong table that is 60" long and moving 18"+24" wont be happening.

Roll off for something that is covered in the rules, every SINGLE GAME? You say you just play friendly games, but really you are TFG.

 Desubot wrote:

Well then citing the book, it seems to be kosher if not entirely slowed since you are not "in" 12" though you are citing rules for measuring between models.

It's probably worth pointing out that this isn't just some definition that GW have created out of whole cloth.

'Within' when used in reference to measuring distances, means 'not further away than' rather than 'less then'.

So 'within 12"' means 'not more than 12" away' rather than 'less than 12" away'.


The problem isn't the rules. It's that a large number of people use the word 'within' incorrectly.

greytalon666 wrote:

Wallur wrote:
When I entered my units from reserve I measured from the edge, like it says... And the only moment that would actually matter is if the game is tight and each single point counts to determine a draw, loss or victory, otherwise I'd just roll.

If it were a tournament, there would be an authority that will have the last word.

Since I play friendly games and we use whatever we have as a table, lately half ping-pong table that is 60" long and moving 18"+24" wont be happening.

Roll off for something that is covered in the rules, every SINGLE GAME? You say you just play friendly games, but really you are TFG.

It wouldn't be EVERYSINGLE GAME, only when this discussion will came up and it's relevant for the result, if points are 7 to 3, 1 more or less point would not be of importance, I would give it if that means we can carry on playing.

And if it is covered in the rules, why is this thread reaching 3 pages? it doesn't seem to be very clear.

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Well then citing the book, it seems to be kosher if not entirely slowed since you are not "in" 12" though you are citing rules for measuring between models.

It's probably worth pointing out that this isn't just some definition that GW have created out of whole cloth.

'Within' when used in reference to measuring distances, means 'not further away than' rather than 'less then'.

So 'within 12"' means 'not more than 12" away' rather than 'less than 12" away'.


The problem isn't the rules. It's that a large number of people use the word 'within' incorrectly.

Iv always seen it as meaning with "in" as in inside of 12"
Im not sure if its regional or some sort of technical nuances but iv yet to find it as not more than 12. (honestly)

nekooni wrote:
Back under your bridge, seriously.

Necessary? i think not.

it doesn't seem to be very clear.

Which part? The part that tells you how to measure coming on from reserves? Or the part that defines within X inches?

Edit to add: And no, that wasn't sarcastic- rather an attempt to find out which part isn't clear to fix the clarity.

Wallur wrote:

greytalon666 wrote:

Wallur wrote:
When I entered my units from reserve I measured from the edge, like it says... And the only moment that would actually matter is if the game is tight and each single point counts to determine a draw, loss or victory, otherwise I'd just roll.

If it were a tournament, there would be an authority that will have the last word.

Since I play friendly games and we use whatever we have as a table, lately half ping-pong table that is 60" long and moving 18"+24" wont be happening.

Roll off for something that is covered in the rules, every SINGLE GAME? You say you just play friendly games, but really you are TFG.

It wouldn't be EVERYSINGLE GAME, only when this discussion will came up and it's relevant for the result, if points are 7 to 3, 1 more or less point would not be of importance, I would give it if that means we can carry on playing.

And if it is covered in the rules, why is this thread reaching 3 pages? it doesn't seem to be very clear.

It's reaching three pages because people with "english degrees" keep arguing what a word within a word means, and try to layer it so that things don't work the way they logically, and as written, should.

 Desubot wrote:

Iv always seen it as meaning with "in" as in inside of 12"
Im not sure if its regional or some sort of technical nuances but iv yet to find it as not more than 12. (honestly)

See definition number 2, below.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/within

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Iv always seen it as meaning with "in" as in inside of 12"
Im not sure if its regional or some sort of technical nuances but iv yet to find it as not more than 12. (honestly)

See definition number 2, below.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/within

Well then i be a monkeys uncle.

 jokerkd wrote:

Breton wrote:
Neither, and both.. Mostly the general principle of measuring in this game- If the front edge of my base is 1 inch away from the front edge of your base, we are within 1 inch. Ergo if the front of my base is 12 inches away from your table edge, I'm within 12 inches of your table edge.

If the nearest edge of my base to your base is 12 inches away, I can rapid fire not? So I must be within 12 inches.

Interchange front and nearest edge if that works better.

If you mean the general principles as written in the rule book, then no, they are not within 12 because they are not actually within 12"

Which general principle in the book are you basing that on? The general principle I based mine on says if two points nearest edges are X inches apart, they're within X inches.

An example is not a rule. The rule says they must be within.

It is only now that insaniak has actually pointed out the relative (and relatively unkown) definition of "within" that this argument can be settled

 jokerkd wrote:
An example is not a rule. The rule says they must be within.

It is only now that insaniak has actually pointed out the relative (and relatively unkown) definition of "within" that this argument can be settled

An example is a rule, it mentions this definition in text as well as examples, and it's been in the rulebooks for as long as I can remember? humorously I'm now curious and I'll check my 2nd Ed books on my next day off.

An example isn't a rule. It's a tool that is used to clarify the rule


In this case, though, the example does serve to clarify what they mean by ' within '...

In my experience I've not come across a player that played where max distance = within. If you're exactly 36" away, you're out of range my heavy bolter. if you're model's base touches the end edge of my tape measure, you're out of range. When you're model is 35.9 inches away, i'll roll some dice.

 deviantduck wrote:
In my experience I've not come across a player that played where max distance = within.

That would be because , as I said, many people misunderstand the correct usage of the word in that context.

It IS how the book says to do it , though, and how GW have always ruled it in the past as well .

 deviantduck wrote:
In my experience I've not come across a player that played where max distance = within. If you're exactly 36" away, you're out of range my heavy bolter. if you're model's base touches the end edge of my tape measure, you're out of range. When you're model is 35.9 inches away, i'll roll some dice.

They range of a heavy bolter IS 36". Not 35.9", not 35.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 inches. 36". THIRTY SIX inches. THIRTY SIX INCHES.

If they meant the range to be 35.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 inches, they would've written


35.9(repeating)"

I guess i view it too much like tennis. It's great if the ball goes up to the net, but you gotta go over it.

 deviantduck wrote:
I guess i view it too much like tennis. It's great if the ball goes up to the net, but you gotta go over it.

Lmao maybe tennis is a bad example brother. What with the whole touching the line counts as "in"

 deviantduck wrote:
I guess i view it too much like tennis. It's great if the ball goes up to the net, but you gotta go over it.

Up to and including.

 deviantduck wrote:
I guess i view it too much like tennis. It's great if the ball goes up to the net, but you gotta go over it.

But that's exactly the issue. The ball getting exactly to the net is still in your side of the court.

Likewise, a model at any distance up to exactly 12" away from the board edge is within 12" of that edge.

 insaniak wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
I guess i view it too much like tennis. It's great if the ball goes up to the net, but you gotta go over it.

But that's exactly the issue. The ball getting exactly to the net is still in your side of the court.

Likewise, a model at any distance up to exactly 12" away from the board edge is within 12" of that edge.

Following that reasoning, the ball end at 36" and is on your side it's not on the other side that is the deployment zone.
But I will give it is in the deployment.

Lines don't have sides.

A line within 12" of one edge of a four foot board is also within 36" of the opposite edge.

Wallur wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
I guess i view it too much like tennis. It's great if the ball goes up to the net, but you gotta go over it.

But that's exactly the issue. The ball getting exactly to the net is still in your side of the court.

Likewise, a model at any distance up to exactly 12" away from the board edge is within 12" of that edge.

Following that reasoning, the ball end at 36" and is on your side it's not on the other side that is the deployment zone.
But I will give it is in the deployment.

There is no deployment zone line that has any sort of thickness to it. Your deployment zone for dawn of war is the first 12" of your table edge going directly towards your opponents table edge. There is no line that is drawn that says "this is the end of your deployment zone". Your deployment zone just ends.

The way I see it is impossible given the movement speed of your unit. There is an invisible line that actually is not included in your movement. It is where the 12 inch deployment zone starts and where your possible movement ends. The way I see it unless you can move 36.00000001 inches you CAN NOT reach the deployment zone. If you were trying to score points against me with this I would argue it to the end.

It starts to make more sense when you increase the bikes movement to 48" and change the parameters of the question. What if the rule stipulated that you need to move off the table. with 48" movement it should be impossible but you can still touch the edge. Never at any point where you off the table though.

Nope, you have that backwards.

If the table is 48", and you're starting of the table, then you're going to have to move more than 48" to get off the table.

But that opposite edge of the table is within 48". That's why you need to move more than 48" to get off the other side.

(Of course, that's ignoring the rule that moves you off the table as soon as you touch the board edge...)

For the 12" line to not be included in your movement, you're giving that line a thickness. Lines don't have a thickness.

48 - 36 is 12.

So if you start 48" away, and you move 36", then you're now 12" away.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The way I see it is impossible given the movement speed of your unit. There is an invisible line that actually is not included in your movement. It is where the 12 inch deployment zone starts and where your possible movement ends. The way I see it unless you can move 36.00000001 inches you CAN NOT reach the deployment zone. If you were trying to score points against me with this I would argue it to the end.

It starts to make more sense when you increase the bikes movement to 48" and change the parameters of the question. What if the rule stipulated that you need to move off the table. with 48" movement it should be impossible but you can still touch the edge. Never at any point where you off the table though.

again,there is no deployment zone line. saying your deployment zone is 12 inches in from your own board edge is the exact same thing as saying your deployment zone is the remaining part of the table that is at least 36 inches directly away from your opponent's table edge.

 insaniak wrote:
So if you start 48" away, and you move 36", then you're now 12" away.

However, in the real world, where we can't measure with perfect mathematical precision, there are two possible outcomes:

1) You start 48" away, move 35.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999", and are more than 12" away.

or

2) You start 48" away, move 36.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001", and are less than 12" away but have made an illegal move.

Or you fluke it and get it perfectly right.
However unlikely, that is still a possibility.
And you can't prove I didn't fluke it as much as I can't prove I did fluke it.

So at best (if you want to pull that) I'm within 12" on a 4+.

In the real world there comes a point where additional precision isn't required because we can't measure it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So if you start 48" away, and you move 36", then you're now 12" away.

However, in the real world, where we can't measure with perfect mathematical precision, there are two possible outcomes:

1) You start 48" away, move 35.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999", and are more than 12" away.

or

2) You start 48" away, move 36.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001", and are less than 12" away but have made an illegal move.

at that level of game you are just going to have to call out theoretical bullgak.

"hey bob you cant possible charge with those jump guys because you have to deploy "Further" than 12" away from the center so the distance inbetween is always more than 24"" kinda thing (I dont remember if the more than 12" away from center is still in)