1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Deploying mines while Climbing Plus

Discussion in 'Rules' started by ObviousGray, Sep 5, 2019.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    7,875
    Because you have to do it without either the unit or the mine leaving their respective sides in this case, so that neither "rests" on top of each other.
     
  2. LankyOgreBP

    LankyOgreBP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    130
    There's not a lot of use in Ariadna right now for this trick, but this seems so absurdly basic to me. [​IMG]
     
  3. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    513
    ain't that true also for deploying a mine on the ground when you are on the ground ? Any gap thicker than a zero-thickness lines means the mine was not placed in base contact and any negative gap would mean you are occupying the intended placement of the mine and the mine fails. Only a zero-thickness line between the model and mine will work.

    It does work both on paper and in reality.
     
  4. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1,524
    Unless you've moved, because then it's implied that the edge of the trooper's base was at exactly where it needed to be in order to place the mine during such a movement.
     
    Robock likes this.
  5. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,245
    Likes Received:
    10,647
    There is no 'on top of the planes'. In geometrical terms this is a meaningless distinction.

    The bottom of the Mine is a partial plane that is parallel to and touching the plane of the roof and is therefore a subsection of the roof plane. The bottom of the trooper is a partial plane that is parallel to and touching the plane of the wall and is therefore a subsection of the wall plane.

    Neither the trooper nor the Mine leaves their respective side.
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.
  6. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,938
    Likes Received:
    9,349
    Yes, and there is still one exact point where the minelayer's base touches the very edge of the roof despite being fully supported by the wall. That place is where the Mine must be placed on the roof.
     
  7. Sergej Faehrlich

    Sergej Faehrlich Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    463
    I am not the best of a mathematical thinker, so please forgive my probably faulty reasoning here:

    I simply cannot see, how the surfaces and the bases should not be two seperate things...subsection implies that they somehow are, Maybe an explanation would help me to get the thought.

    If the are not the same, and the bases are located ON (in better terms for above) the surfaces, than there is a difference in "height"...or better: in the verctor coordinates of the respective points. But since the two surfaces are in contact only in one line of points...the edge...the the two bases cannot be in contact...because they are not the surfaces.

    Again: I am not strictly positioned on this topic as it only applies to Climbing + troops ans basically would be a pretty cool move. Still it is hard to argue that for slicing the pie I would have to demonstrate that there is a theroretical gap in overlapping LoF (which I like to circumvene by playing intend), while in this case the reasoning relies on geometry due to the practical impossiblity of demonstration (which I again would circumvene by simply allowing it for the sake of coolness).
     
  8. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    691
    @ijw, I reckon you were arguing against 'hard intent' with infinitesimal fire angles that can be geometrically proven to exist. Yet here, when presented an argument that two bases located in perpendicular planes can only have a common point at the intersection of these planes in a world with zero-width objects (i.e. on paper), you lean onto geometry to prove your point.

    It is really impossible to have a precisely cut right angle -- there will always be minor imperfections that will make the rib, connecting the wall and the roof, a non-zero-width object, therefore turning an intersection of two planes into a pair of planar intersections, this preventing the situation where there exists a line that belongs to both the roof plane and the wall plane.

    I'm not saying you're wrong -- you're very much right, from the geometrical point of view. But if you're using geometry as a basis for your argument here, why shouldn't infinitely precise pie-slicing be a thing when it uses exactly the same reasoning? What's suddenly so different about these two phenomenae?
     
  9. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,245
    Likes Received:
    10,647
    As stated up-thread, my position is this:
    Example:

    IMG_5049_1536px.jpg

    IMG_5050_1536px.jpg

    The trooper's base is fully supported.
    The Mine is fully supported.
    The base and the Mine are touching.


    My use of geometry is in reply to:
    Where, as far as I can tell, Mahtamori is claiming that it's not geometrically possible to have a point that exists on two planes at once.
     
  10. Musterkrux

    Musterkrux Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    491
    Oh shit.

    Y'all know you done fucked up when you force IJW to start taking photos...
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    7,875
    The mine is overlapping the side
     
  12. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,245
    Likes Received:
    10,647
    Where?
     
  13. bladerunner_35

    bladerunner_35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    113
    Guys, dudes, bros!

    I was going to give this thread a mere 3/5 because of the abysmal lack of diagarams but now. Actual photos! And people still disagreeing?!

    Instant 5/7!!1
     
  14. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    1,344
    I see a small part of the mine that seems to be supported by victor messer base (on the second picture), is it what you see ?
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    7,875
    Yup, precisely this.
     
  16. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,938
    Likes Received:
    9,349
    Even if it was not slightly overlapping Messer's base, there is still a point where the very edge of the Mine's base can touch the very edge of Messer's base!
     
  17. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,245
    Likes Received:
    10,647
    That's a shadow. If you follow the line of the edge, the Mine isn't going over it.

    IMG_5050_redline.jpg
     
    bladerunner_35 and ObviousGray like this.
  18. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    7,875
    You need a perpendicular shot to the two models to judge whether either model's base is over the edge, the angled shot makes it impossible to see. And a shot at 135 degrees angle to the corner to judge if they are touching. If that is even enough.
    It is also important to know whether "base" refers to the actual physical object or the silhouette
    Going back to my original point, that may exist but in which case it is infinitely precise that you have to use strict intent play to accomplish placing it because the nature of where you place them strictly prevents you from using the placing model as a brace. Plus it requires the rules base to refer to silhouette or for you to be using mint condition bases that don't taper from wear or design at the bottom.

    This is why I choose to err on the side of caution when judging what rule of thumb is reasonable, particularly since I consider the nature of tise placement to be weird, counter-intuitive, and gamey.
     
  19. Whyrocknodie

    Whyrocknodie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    72
    I can see it, thus:

    Climbing Plus Mines.jpg
     
  20. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    7,875
    It's already stretching my suspense of disbelief that a trooper won't ARO in even a remotely logical manner when someone deploys a mine in plain view of them.

    Like... jump for cover you idiot.