Eddie Orlock

Lately I've been dreaming up a 4'x8'x1' multiaxis cnc table to use to create contoured battlescapes ad hoc from generative code all of one piece.

There are some provisions for understrength squads in the core rulebook that may be worth looking into depending on the competitiveness of your games.

I mostly hope for some kind of rule that'll allow retinues in some capacity to not break detachment/army bonuses.

Glossary on page 365 defines 'In Terrain' in a manner such that even if a lip of the base was overlapping the terrain template the model would be interpreted as in the terrain. This is consistent conceptually with the discussion of WITHIN AND WHOLLY WITHIN on pg 199 and the related glossary definitions in the lower left corners of pg 367, particularly in contrast with 'Wholly in terrain' in that region. Obscuring on pg 263 makes reference to the on or within, which feeds back to the glossary definition of 'in terrain' that being part of a base overlapping the terrain would be considered 'in'. So it seems to come down to if 'touching' counts as 'on'. I would likely think not, but without imagery it's hard to say, and in practice it would come down to player agreement. Something to talk over with your opponent, ideally between games when feelings are chill.

We've wandered off topic into arts and crafts. At request I can reopen this another forum.

Again, the stipulated procedure is from the bound of the objective marker. Any other procedure would be an unofficial short cut. So: for competitive play you'd stick strictly to what's defined on page 237 of the rulebook and any pertinent errata. While that page does recommend 40mm round markers, it explicitly allows '... any suitable marker, ...'. So they could be larger or smaller, or not even round, unless your event organizer stipulates otherwise. But such a local stipulation would be just that, a local rule and not an official rule portable to other events. Further, your sloppy conversion from metric to customary units has extended your range by a couple thou. So if you could measure to such precision and accuracy and not resort to declaring it ambiguous and dicing for it it would've been cheating to claim that a figure who's base was at 3.8" from the centre of a 40mm.

Why would you measure from the centre? Marker size is variable and the rules imply from an edge.

Which would be all well and good if pg. 214 made reference to 'models', but it doesn't, it calls up 'units'. I mean, this is largely an academic question. I doubt very much is anyone would actually try to claim that those new 'units' would cost points when we all know their the same models over again. The problem is, if we embrace too much interpretation, eventually the whole edifice of reasonably reliably parseable rules crumbles into a sea of idiosyncrasy. Have you ever played the 'Legend of the Five Rings' while it was published by AEG? That game, at various points in it's history had 'The rule of obvious legality'. A horrific rules patch that basically said that even if a card clearly violated any number of base game rules, it still worked as the designers intended. Of course, this game was played world wide. If you think rules debates get vigorous around here, they've got nothing on what happened over there. You'ld get FAQ documents for these cards that provided a bespoke interpretation of how those cards played for nearly each and every possible card it could interact with. Often in ways that would be totally counter-intuitive to how much of the audience initially read the card. Now, I don't think this kind of exemption will get to that point, but the hazard is real.

Well, this calls that into question. I agree with the premise though, but the trick is how to get there without mass rule fiats. Anyway, I think a possible reconciliation came to me in a dream the other night. Previously we'd noted that explicitly new units had to be paid for. What may distinguish these operations from those operations is that for these a unit of some variety is first removed from the roster without being destroyed as part of the action which could mean we could claim those new elements added are replacements and thus not 'new', just a modification of a prior entry. I'm not sure what I've typed up here is hugely different, other than I've used larger words, but I think the base concept is that things you remove are defacto a credit against the costs of the things you add back in.

Such an excellent question that I raised it on the previous page of the thread. I think the design intent here is fairly likely that they shouldn't, but how can we get there within the existing rules framework? I guess we could read some semi-formal definition into the word 'split' that makes the resultant units not 'new', just 'redisignated'. Alternatively, we might attach 'newness' to a unit only iff all the models that comprise it independently have some kind of 'new' attached to them. If we could build a case that could close-couple 'Reinforcement Points' to the 'Reinforcement' side-bar we might be able to then argue that since the strat(s) in question don't actually set anything up anew a check never triggers. Outside of a naming coincidence though, I'm not sure I could make such a link stick.

Early 2nd also had polymorphined assassins springing up in terminator suits while on bikes. In RT times, with the right character generation rolls it was possible to get a high level psyker with a temporal manipulation ability that could essentially cancel the other sides turn every turn.

I never said that the model would stay where you put it if isn't standing on terrain. Actually, you did. Right here: This may be the intention but that is not what the rules say. As written, guardsmen can "fly". I mean, yeah, the physical model would fall, but we'd already invoked WMS to ignore physics and 'virtualise' the models location by the time we got to that. This seems to be something of a false dichotomy, that measurement is only one type or the other. This is explicitly contradicted in the 'STEPPING INTO A NEW EDITION OF WARHAMMER 40,000' rules clarification document. Like many systems, it's expected that you read the documents in concert with one another to capture the true intent. Of course wilful ignorance of a source will lead to distorted conclusions.