Something came up in a 5k game versus Markconz today, a common core rule that we apparently interpret differently.

When disembarking from transport vehicles the rules say that units must be placed “within 5cm”. Does this mean their entire base must be placed within 5cm? (my interpretation) or can it be mostly outside so long as a little bit of the base is inside 5cm? (Mark's interpretation).

This is a 5-min warmup topic, as there's no indication either way. It's in the new FAQs that'll be in out soon.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I always read it as being similar to unit coherency so any part of the base being within 5cm. Especially if using the original Battlefortress models where 12 stands all completely within 5cm starts getting tricky...

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

Yeah we've always considered anything touching to be qualified as being "in" for game purposes (unit coherency, cover, assault range, etc). A good one for the 5 minute warm up.

Hey chaps, do we actually have a set of bullet points with some suggestions for the types of questions to cover in the warm up? Might be a good thing to cover in the TP.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Most over here play it as 'part of stand within' too.
Ork Landas can take 14 stands and, a bit a like IJW's example, getting all the stands out and stand within 5cm of the vehicle can be nigh on impossible....!

I tried once but it was ridiculously long - this "5 minute warmup" suggestion is all very well, but actually if we discussed all of them it'd be a 20 minute warmup

It'd be nice to have a "consensus based default" for all these issues in times when it is omitted from the 5 minute warmup. Sort of like an FAQ, but not binding. Like the way pre-measuring is addressed in the rulebook.

My experience with this rule in particular is mixed. In friendly games we tend to play it sort of a mix of both ways without really thinking about it. More like "edge of transport model to the furthest infantry model". We tend to only use bases to define "base contact". In tournaments, I tend to let my opponent decide, initially because I just figured I wasn't always in sync with how "everybody else" plays things, but now I know that's not really true and there is less consensus that I thought. I still let them decide cos I to prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, but this is a classic example of where I've found differing but equally strongly held opinions. Including one opponent who wanted to play it one way in one tournament, and then the other way in a subsequent tournament (depending on which was to his advantage of course) I just keep quiet and let them carry on, context has a way of colouring ones perspective and you have to expect a little of this in a tournament, it's competitive after all. Anyway the point is, players don't even necessarily agree with themselves, let alone each other

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

In important actions, we pre-measure disembarkment as +5 cms to the transport's move and come to an agreement of the effect (i e how many units are "in" or "out" of the engagement etc). "Within" 5 cms has little practical meaning then.

/Fredmans

Good idea Fredmans. I do a similar thing for counter-charges - measure and agree the number of counter-chargers that will be in range before moving any of them.

I think there are broadly three scenarios

• Touching (B-B) is fairly obvious for assaults and the to-hit deduction etc.
• Within 'x' Cms is also reasonably clear (coherence, commander, intermingling).
  Here the gap between the relevant bases is less than the specified value
• Placement of troops within 'x' is the one that needs discussion (disembarking, Daemon placement, Avatar placement etc).

Is there a way that we might change the wording so that the placement of troops has a gap that is less than 'x' cm? This would mean we would only have two definitions . . . .

Would be nice to have a ruling from NetEA perhaps. Other rules I play (like DBX series) have had specifiers of "within" vs "entirely within" so without it being specified further I've always gone with the first option (i.e. unless it is specified otherwise I take the least restrictive clause). Having said that like with most rules I'll go with the other persons interpretation as I did with Glyn yesterday.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

We've always played 'as long as any part of the base is within 5cms' the same as the majority in this thread (and the same as Mark's interpretation).
This can possibly give a slight advantage to longer, thinner bases (as opposed to the original square bases) but it's honestly never come up as an issue and I see no reason to change things.

As others have said, placing the disembarked units completely within 5cms just isn't always practical.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I'll happily play it as any part within 5cm rather then entirely within in future. Sorry Mark, I expected most people to play the other way bit am obviously wrong.

Any bit within 5cm might allow a planetfalling aircraft to deploy a couple of formations either side of say a titan and crossfire each at the other. Might have to try this...

The 5 min warm-up is a great chance to cover these things as Dave mentioned.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I realise that a FAQ says only Space Marines disembark up to 15 cm from their drop pods.

But the first part of the sentence in 4.4 Planetfall "Aircraft that land by planetfall are treated in the same manner as a landed aircraft (see 4.2.5), and they may take off again later in the game."

Would not an aircraft that lands and contains units with jump packs or skimmer be able to deploy up to 15 cm away. I was expecting to do it with my Tau. You do have to pre-plot positions, and then summer random displacement, so it would be relatively difficult to exactly plan getting troops from the same aircraft on both sides for a titan.

No. Planetfalling is really a mere mechanic to place reserve forces onto the battlefield. They literally drop in to that point on the table and may then disembark normally (5cm) in order to activate later in the turn.

This is substantially different from an aircraft flying across the table with troops dropping out like paratroopers under 4.2.5. The key phrase is Theoretically the troops ought to be placed along the path taken by the transport, though this is not stipulated allowing the player much greater latitude in placing his troops.



Onyx and Dave, this should be added to the FAQ, suitably worded of course.