measurements for scoring

[Cilibeo]

Hi all!

I have a question about measurements for control objectives.

For example: I deploy a unit with ambush (beast of chaos) in the scenery "the better part of the valour" within 6" of the edge's objective. This unit can control the objective (maybe one or two models) or not?  How should I consider the edge of the bases?

[Isotop]

2 hours ago, Cilibeo said:

Hi all!

I have a question about measurements for control objectives.

For example: I deploy a unit with ambush (beast of chaos) in the scenery "the better part of the valour" within 6" of the edge's objective. This unit can control the objective (maybe one or two models) or not?  How should I consider the edge of the bases?

The objective is 12" away from the table edge and an ambushing units deploys wholly within 6" of a table edge, right?

In this case - yes, you can capture the objective. Exactly one model can make it into the "control range" of 6" around the objective. Just draw a line from the center of the objective to the table edge, hitting the edge at an angle of 90°. Put one model from the ambushing unit with the center of its base onto the line so that the model is completely (wholly) within 6" from the table edge and also within 6" of the objective´s center.

I hope this is clear enough - in any other case, feel free to ask!

[Cilibeo]

Yes, is exactly this case 😀 thank you very much for your answer Isotop! 

[XReN]

I would argue that you can't, because you measure control distance from center of an objective which IMO don't have an actual diametr and you set up your models WW 6" of the table edge so there is no way mathematecally you can control the objective. 

EDIT:

After some debate with @Isotop I change my mind, I think he is right about the topic 

[Isotop]

17 hours ago, XReN said:

I would argue that you can't, because you measure control distance from center of an objective which IMO don't have an actual diametr and you set up your models WW 6" of the table edge so there is no way mathematecally you can control the objective. 

I do not really get your argument - can you explain it to me in depth?

Maybe there is some confusion with the term "center of the objective". It is a little bit misleading, since the "objective" and "its center" are identical. An objective is not anything more than a single point on the battlefield. Therefore, if this point is 12" away from a table edge, you can surely get within 6" of this point while being wholly within 6" of the table edge. What exactly am I missing here? 

[King Taloren]

40 minutes ago, Isotop said:

I do not really get your argument - can you explain it to me in depth?

Maybe there is some confusion with the term "center of the objective". It is a little bit misleading, since the "objective" and "its center" are identical. An objective is not anything more than a single point on the battlefield. Therefore, if this point is 12" away from a table edge, you can surely get within 6" of this point while being wholly within 6" of the table edge. What exactly am I missing here? 

The fact that to be wholly within the 6” line puts you exactly outside the 6” radius of the objective that is 12” inside the table edge. To be wholly within the model in its entirety must be inside the 6” line from the table and therefore cannot be within  the 6” line that can be drawn from the objective.

The objective is always measured from the center of the marker per the rule for matched play regarding objectives. So to be within 6” of the objective it would have to break the rules of being wholly within 6” of the table edge with the small defining line drawn straight across starting at the point the models base would end and unable to cross to make the within 6” mark it is .0000001 Inches away but that is still too far away to claim the objective 

[XReN]

5 hours ago, Isotop said:

I do not really get your argument - can you explain it to me in depth?

Maybe there is some confusion with the term "center of the objective". It is a little bit misleading, since the "objective" and "its center" are identical. An objective is not anything more than a single point on the battlefield. Therefore, if this point is 12" away from a table edge, you can surely get within 6" of this point while being wholly within 6" of the table edge. What exactly am I missing here? 

@King Taloren explained it right

[Isotop]

7 hours ago, King Taloren said:

The fact that to be wholly within the 6” line puts you exactly outside the 6” radius of the objective that is 12” inside the table edge. To be wholly within the model in its entirety must be inside the 6” line from the table and therefore cannot be within  the 6” line that can be drawn from the objective.

The objective is always measured from the center of the marker per the rule for matched play regarding objectives. So to be within 6” of the objective it would have to break the rules of being wholly within 6” of the table edge with the small defining line drawn straight across starting at the point the models base would end and unable to cross to make the within 6” mark it is .0000001 Inches away but that is still too far away to claim the objective 

That is not how it works:

 

"Q: Sometimes a rule will specify that a model or unit needs to be ‘wholly within’ a certain distance. What exactly does ‘wholly within’ mean?

A: A model is wholly within a certain distance if every part of its base is within the stated distance. A unit is wholly within a certain distance if every part of the bases of all of the models in the unit is within the stated distance. For example, a model would be wholly within 12" of the edge of the battlefield as long as every part of its base was 12" or less from the edge, while a unit would be wholly within 12" of the edge of the battlefield as long as every part of every base of the models from the unit were 12" or less from the edge."

(https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Core-Rules-and-Bases-Sizes-EN.pdf, page 3)

 

As you can see here, you do not have to be less then x away from y to fulfill "being wholly within x of y". Being exactly x away statisfies "wholly within" just fine. Therefore, in our example, you can be exactly 6" away from the table edge. There is no "line" (as you suggested) we are not allowed to touch - instead, we are not allowed to go across it (as shown in the quote above). Touching the "line" you are talking about is well within the rules for "wholly within" and brings us within range of the Objective.

If there is anything not clear about my argument or the evidence from the rules above, feel free to ask/discuss.

[XReN]

1 hour ago, Isotop said:

we are not allowed to go across it

That is exactly what you need to be within control zone. By setting up WW 6" of board edge you are just outside of control zone, just touching it and to be within a control zone you have to have any part of model's base inside 6" around objective's center


 

[Isotop]

42 minutes ago, XReN said:

That is exactly what you need to be within control zone. By setting up WW 6" of board edge you are just outside of control zone, just touching it and to be within a control zone you have to have any part of model's base inside 6" around objective's center


 

"Just touching" is enough to be "within". The simplest example is two models being base-to-base. They are considered to have a distance of 0" to each other. They are within 0" of each other. According to your interpretation, two models could not ever be within 0" of each other, since they are "just touching". Am I getting you wrong?

[King Taloren]

2 hours ago, Isotop said:

"Just touching" is enough to be "within". The simplest example is two models being base-to-base. They are considered to have a distance of 0" to each other. They are within 0" of each other. According to your interpretation, two models could not ever be within 0" of each other, since they are "just touching". Am I getting you wrong?

You are right to a point and by that you could possibly get a single model in range of the objective with that argument. But only one exactly 6” away. Which if you are having to take a late game objective like that is probably not going to happen if the enemy has at least two models there.

[XReN]

3 hours ago, Isotop said:

"Just touching" is enough to be "within". The simplest example is two models being base-to-base. They are considered to have a distance of 0" to each other. They are within 0" of each other. According to your interpretation, two models could not ever be within 0" of each other, since they are "just touching". Am I getting you wrong?

How does being within 0" of control zone makes you control it? You're not inside it!

[Isotop]

23 hours ago, XReN said:

How does being within 0" of control zone makes you control it? You're not inside it!

I think you are getting confused because of the term "control zone" - which you are making up. There is no "control zone" a model has to be "inside" of.  When checking if a player controls an objective, you count up the number of models being 6" within the objective (in most cases - there are exceptions with 3" instead of 6). So yes, being within 0" (touching) of a circle with a radius of 6" around an objective makes a model eligible for "controlling" the objective.

I think you really got caught up in a wrong explanation you initially created in your mind. But you have to look at the actual rules and the evidence I presented you in this thread, not your gut feeling or whatever you used to solve the question here. In the end, the rules are pretty clear on the topic we are discussing here. If there is any more need for explanation or evidence, feel free to ask.

 

On 2/19/2019 at 1:19 PM, King Taloren said:

You are right to a point and by that you could possibly get a single model in range of the objective with that argument. But only one exactly 6” away. 

Firstly: Thanks for appreciating my argumentation. But what do you mean by "right to a point"? I was not talking about anything but the question wether a model can be wholly within 6" of a board edge while also being within 6" of an objective (with the objective being 12" away from the same edge). This is the only thing @Cilibeo wanted to know and I think I gave him a well explained answer to the question. I am not sure why you voted my posts down and put yourself on the oppositions side without providing a valid counter argument, but I would be glad listening to your explanation. Did we talk about another topic I am not aware of? Please let me know.

On 2/19/2019 at 1:19 PM, King Taloren said:

 Which if you are having to take a late game objective like that is probably not going to happen if the enemy has at least two models there.

While being true, how does this have any relevance for the specific question? This addition really distracts from the fact that the question was correctly answered by me and that I was voted down for (apparently) no good reason. Again, if I quoted the rules in an incorrect way or a deduction I made was defective, please show me the mistakes I made and we can discuss this topic further.

[XReN]

39 minutes ago, Isotop said:

I think you are getting confused because of the term "control zone" - which you are making up. There is no "control zone" a model has to be "inside" of.  When checking if a player controls an objective, you count up the number of models being 6" within the objective (in most cases - there are exceptions with 3" instead of 6). So yes, being within 0" (touching) of a circle with a radius of 6" around an objective makes a model eligible for "controlling" the objective.

I think you really got caught up in a wrong explanation you initially created in your mind. But you have to look at the actual rules and the evidence I presented you in this thread, not your gut feeling or whatever you used to solve the question here. In the end, the rules are pretty clear on the topic we are discussing here. If there is any more need for explanation or evidence, feel free to ask.

Dammit, that's the most stupid rules debate I've head, since I'm not a native english speaker I did not know the dictionary meaning of "within".
So now after I've searched it I agree with your arguments, they make perfect sence.