"Wholly on top" 10th speculation

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.

**Dudeface**

DeathReaper wrote:
Voss wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Gangland wrote:
I'll wait till the rulebook is out to criticize, but I will say, if needed, I would houserule it that as long as 51% of the model is on top of the terrain feature it would be "wholly on top."

If the car is 51% in the parking space, is it in the parking space as intended?

If 4 clowncars have one wheel in one parking space, are they all in the parking space as intended? It all depends on the intention does it not?

No. It doesn't. It matters if they're in the space. Can't quite follow where the metaphor is supposed to be going, but the wording of the rule is quite clear in English.
Unless there's some GW-ese language defining it differently waiting in the rulebook, the base of the model needs to be entirely within the bounds of the terrain feature.

Lorek wrote:

These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up...

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Most importantly #3...

Sorry. If you dock your imperial frigate 51% into the docking berth, is it within the docking berth as intended.

Abstraction included, if your unit is not in/on entirely then a chunk of it is hanging out. Can a unit occupy the space outside the terrain feature without being onto of another mini claiming to be wholly within. In this case, no it cannot.

Likewise the same reason we all largely seem to agree 1 & 4 are correct.

Edit: sorry I take objection to getting a slap on the wrist there as I presented a visualisation to the solution that explained why it didn't work. A metaphor as noted is not directly a real life example.

If I had said "no it doesn't count because I expect to get a legal fine for not using a parking space" then yes, tenet 3 is relevant. However I was merely trying to help visualise that an object with 49% of its mass hanging out of the designed space it should occupy does not in fact, constitute as "in the space". Likewise its inability to be in a space is not only abundantly clear, but presents a series of other issues that directly conflict the intent of the rule via movement.

**DeathReaper**

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Voss wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Gangland wrote:
I'll wait till the rulebook is out to criticize, but I will say, if needed, I would houserule it that as long as 51% of the model is on top of the terrain feature it would be "wholly on top."

If the car is 51% in the parking space, is it in the parking space as intended?

If 4 clowncars have one wheel in one parking space, are they all in the parking space as intended? It all depends on the intention does it not?

No. It doesn't. It matters if they're in the space. Can't quite follow where the metaphor is supposed to be going, but the wording of the rule is quite clear in English.
Unless there's some GW-ese language defining it differently waiting in the rulebook, the base of the model needs to be entirely within the bounds of the terrain feature.

Lorek wrote:

These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up...

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Most importantly #3...

Sorry. If you dock your imperial frigate 51% into the docking berth, is it within the docking berth as intended.

Abstraction included, if your unit is not in/on entirely then a chunk of it is hanging out. Can a unit occupy the space outside the terrain feature without being onto of another mini claiming to be wholly within. In this case, no it cannot.

Likewise the same reason we all largely seem to agree 1 & 4 are correct.

Edit: sorry I take objection to getting a slap on the wrist there as I presented a visualisation to the solution that explained why it didn't work. A metaphor as noted is not directly a real life example.

If I had said "no it doesn't count because I expect to get a legal fine for not using a parking space" then yes, tenet 3 is relevant. However I was merely trying to help visualise that an object with 49% of its mass hanging out of the designed space it should occupy does not in fact, constitute as "in the space". Likewise its inability to be in a space is not only abundantly clear, but presents a series of other issues that directly conflict the intent of the rule via movement.

Yes, I was specifically talking about Gitdakka, and your comments about the parking space/clown car bit, which was a real-world example.

**Gitdakka**

I just thought it was annoying to bring up car parking, as real world rules for parking are fully defined but might not at all be related to 40k and it's rules definitions.

"Wholly within" when parking and checking rules in a miniature board game might not mean the same things. Making it a space ship or a clown car is no less a real example as we still discussing parking.

That's why i replied with a clown car because i found it ridiculous in the context of the discussion.

Maybe the proper thing would have been to not reply.

Anyways, sorry if I broke any forum rules.

**Dudeface**

Gitdakka wrote:
I just thought it was annoying to bring up car parking, as real world rules for parking are fully defined but might not at all be related to 40k and it's rules definitions.

"Wholly within" when parking and checking rules in a miniature board game might not mean the same things. Making it a space ship or a clown car is no less a real example as we still discussing parking.

That's why i replied with a clown car because i found it ridiculous in the context of the discussion.

Maybe the proper thing would have been to not reply.

Anyways, sorry if I broke any forum rules.

I think it's my fault for allowing the relevant in game logic be what I thought was an obvious deduction, don't worry.