Thursday, 2 December 2010

TKE's GoT (Glossary of Terms) - "Within"

Within.  Unfortunately, in real life this has a significantly different meaning to what it does in-game.  I imagine this is probably worse in translation, unless the new language has separate words for the two meaning, and they are applied correctly - but it's bad enough for you lot out there, it seems.  Of course, by 'you lot', I primarily don't actually mean my readers, but if this proves a valuable resource in demonstrating internet folly (of which there is much) then I consider it a job well done.

Normally, if I say something is 'within' something else, you take it to mean in it's entirety.  Such as "the phrase was within quotation marks."



In 40k, however, this is not actually the case.  In 40k, the word 'within' means 'the difference between two points'...and it always has.

I've seen a little bit of e-raeg recently over the fact that when you disembark only the merest fraction of your base needs to be 2" away from the door...yet people seem to have no issue when their models are assaulting something 6" away...or measuring ranges.  For something to be 'within' range, it needs to be equal to or less than the maximum range away from the base or gun barrel, depending on unit type.  There is NO DIFFERENCE when measuring other distances, be they Coherency, assaulting, movement or disembarkation.  [Cheating with movement, one of the very sadly rampant 'accidents' in our Hobby, is no worse than saying something is in range to be shot when it clearly isn't.]

I am fully aware that the ability to disembark fully 2" away from the vehicle essentially gives you an extra inch of movement and so are GW.  If you actually *look* at the diagram of it in the BRB, it clearly shows a Marine leaving a Rhino from  that distance - and it is true in reverse, too - you can get into a vehicle from that far away (though I doubt the kind of players who whine about rules they perceive to gyp them would be so conscientious as to ensure ALL of a squad can get within 2" of a door before removing them and declaring they are aboard...)

If it helps you, think of it this way.  People in real life do not have a base.  They *do* however, have personal space, to an extent.  No one in reality stands right in front of, or beside a stranger or non-intimately known sort of person - consider this the area the model's base in our analogy.

If you are on a bus, you no longer have that, when the bus is full.  Strangers will sit beside you, as will acquaintances.  Fact is, that's where the seats are.  In 40k, those Transports cannot carry half the models they are meant to, because of stupid scaling.  Imagine, then, that they are fairly tightly packed in there, too.

When you get off the bus, this personal space 'appears' again, and people you don't know will not be crowding you, as long as the space exists for them to not be crowded themselves.  Indeed, a lot of people jump off buses' last step, or speed up at least, to create this 'bubble' all the quicker.  Is it unrealistic then, for GW to put this into effect in rules?

Plus, of course, if you go back to earlier Editions, it has always been the wording, and 'within' has always meant the same, in 40k terms.  Just because it 'wasn't played that way' is irrelevant.  Wrong is wrong, and populism doesn't make it right.^

If you fail to interpret the rules correctly once, and they don't change, you are likely to take offence when it is pointed out to you they were always that way.  Don't.  It's not an insult, just because your reading comprehension isn't what you think it is.  The fact that so many of us start the Hobby as kids is kinda a bad thing, reinforcing this culture of 'Don't read the Rulebook yourself! Learn by playing other people!', which perpetuates the same mistakes time after time.

Learn the Rules by Reading the Rules.  Learn the Game by Playing the Game.  Two independent processes.

Comments, etc?

9 comments:

sonsoftaurus said...

Good post and reminder. This would be a great bit for GW to put into the early pages of 6th edition - diagrams and explanations of what they mean by "within", "up to" and "more than" when talking about distances.

Flekkzo said...

Actually reading the rules yourself is quite an interesting exercise where you learn about the real rules and find that people create their own rules now and then. I remember reading on the internets that vehicles could determine the outcome of an assault, ie that the number of damage rolls counted as wounds. For example I multi assault one unit and one vehicle, cause two wounds and two glances while recieving two wounds. According to the rules that is a draw, according to the internets it's a loss for me. Go figure:)

(I read all of the vehicle rules yesterday btw. And had said vehicle been a walker, I indeed would have lost the fight.)

Good call on the glossary. And I find it irritating when people argue the cases where GW actually bothered to put a diagram in and show us.

Anonymous said...

Now here's a question for you... how far in front of the Predator do you have to be for both the sponson Lascannons to see you?

Von said...

It would be nice if GW used a clear and consistent rules vocabulary, wouldn't it?

It's never going to happen while each of their releases and editions has a designated auteur in charge rather than being a genuine studio effort, but still, we can dream.

Loquacious said...

I might end up turning this in a way you're not quite intending to go, but I am interested in your POV.

I'm currently reading the rules in an attempt to learn them.

I'm really struggling with understanding certain concepts (wound wrapping, for example)- but it's been through watching play or demonstrations that I've started to get a good grasp on those said concepts.

Is it your perspective that this is a wrong way of doing it? Or are you saying something else that I am missing?

TheKing Elessar said...

@SoT, Flekkzo, Von - Cheers, glad it was enjoyed. I plan to do a bunch of these articles. :)

@clt40k - I don't have one to hand as I type, but I figure it's about 3", give or take. Of course, depends on sponson weapon, too. When I do my 'Line of Sight' one, I will check.

@Loquacious - (thank goodness for pop-out windows, didn't want to try and spell that! :p ) I would say that you're doing things perfectly. Imagine now if you tried to pick those rules up without reading them first. I imagine they'd be even more awkward and confusing - learning the game purely by reading is impossible, but learning the rules entirely through playing is also impossible. Things will invariably be wrong. Also, demonstrations don't count as playing. ;)

If it helps, I can bump Wound Allocation to next in the series?

Death Korps of War said...

as interesting as this article was, i just feel that i have to point out that most people dont care enough about this whole "within" word, or they just dont want to speak up about it because its such a minor issue.

i mean i've only heard of 1 person who questioned every movement their opponents made, and that was at the Tournament during the summer.

everyone i've played or know never points out if im doing something wrong during a game. they just gets on with it because either they dont know that the rule is in place, or they know the rule but dont want to mention it because, as said, its such a minor issue.

and dont give me that, "what if someone movement cheated and charged a squad of yours and destroyed it?" all i'd have to say is i probably didnt notice they movement cheated, or i did notice, but didnt care much, because im focusing on the bigger picture of the game. focusing on such a small matter just doesnt make sense to me. if i lose a battle because of it, i lose a battle because of it. who cares? i enjoyed the game nonetheless.

all i have to say on the matter. poke holes in what i said at your leisure...lol

Loquacious said...

TKE: Most folks use "Loq" or "Lo"... so no worries on spelling if you're lazy...

Yes, wound wrapping would be friggin awesome.

sonsoftaurus said...

Lo - (see?) this might help with wound wrapping if you haven't seen it yet:

http://sonsoftaurus.blogspot.com/2010/08/40k-basics-wound-allocation-its-not.html

Disclaimer.

Primarily, a blog to discuss the Games Workshop system Warhammer 40k, though not exclusively so. All GW IP used without permission, no challenge intended.

Pretty much everything here is my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you are welcomed to say so. If you don't like me, but like my opinion, feel free to say so. If you don't like me or my opinion, I don't need to hear it. Why even visit?