It happened last night in a game. I figured the vehicle was for all intents and purposes "destroyed". Kill points didnt matter, it was a capture and control game anyway.

A Leman Russ Executioner attempts to enter the board after being in reserves. It entered the board going thru difficult (dangerous) terrain that was on the very board edge and makes its check. It rolled a '1' for going thru the terrain.

Hence, actually, the tank couldnt make it all the way on the board. My opponent asks me what happens, I told him I thought it was destroyed.

Correct?

The model may overlap the edge, otherwise you'd never be able to get a Monolith onto the board.

yes but the model stops at the point in which it enters the terrain i think so it would not even make it to the board edge

hmm dunno tho i may have made that up

Was the terrain touching or up against the table edge?

I ask because:

"A result of 1 means that
the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an
Immobilised damage result, so if it was attempting to
enter difficult terrain it stops just outside."

Under "Vehicles," subsection "Vehicles and Movement," subsection "Terrain Effects."

Seems to indicate that if the difficult terrain was touching the table edge, the vehicle didn't even partially make it onto the board ("stops just outside [the terrain]"). Therefore, the vehicle would be destroyed.

However, if the vehicle was partially on the board, I can't find anything saying that a vehicle partially off the board is entirely off the board, so it'd be immobilized but still in play. He could still shoot, and the vehicle, IIRC, would be worth 50% victory points at the end of the game.

You can be partially on the board and fully, 100% satisfy the requirement to move onto the board.

Unless your terrain was perfectly flush the model will be at least 0.00001", and will be fine.

Edit again:

For the sake of the game the vehicle would be placed onto the board edge with its back against it. and immobalised

Mahtamori wrote:The model may overlap the edge, otherwise you'd never be able to get a Monolith onto the board.

Deepstriking?



Where does the rulebook state that? Models are supposed to be on the game board right? Half-on Half-off is not on the gameboard. Noone knows what conditions OFF the gamboard are. Perhaps its ALL Line of sight blocked...essentially if its off the 6'4" table...its not in play.

Partially off the board is partially "out of play"...sort of like partially "pregnant"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:Was the terrain touching or up against the table edge?

I ask because:

"A result of 1 means that
the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an
Immobilised damage result, so if it was attempting to
enter difficult terrain it stops just outside."

Under "Vehicles," subsection "Vehicles and Movement," subsection "Terrain Effects."

Seems to indicate that if the difficult terrain was touching the table edge, the vehicle didn't even partially make it onto the board ("stops just outside [the terrain]"). Therefore, the vehicle would be destroyed.

However, if the vehicle was partially on the board, I can't find anything saying that a vehicle partially off the board is entirely off the board, so it'd be immobilized but still in play. He could still shoot, and the vehicle, IIRC, would be worth 50% victory points at the end of the game.

It was touching the table edge.

dead then

Like Nos said, you could probably finagle a millimeter or so out of it and technically claim it's on the board, and it's legally so...

...but honestly, who'd do that? I'd play this one as destroyed.

Deadshane - no such rule exists. Partially on resolves entirely and 100% the requirement for moving onto the board.

You may play it differently, but that is a houserule.

deadshane, I believe pregnancy is usually measured in weeks or months, not binary (for several reasons I will refuse to discuss analogies regarding reserve rolls, thank you). I also believe that there are no rules regarding what happens if a model is outside the board edge, only fuzzy rules regarding how close to the edge models may traverse.

I'd say its destroyed, it never really made it onto the board due to failing its test.

For simplicities sake I would just call it destroyed and leave it off the table. I think if something hasn't come on the board by the end of the game it counts as destroyed anyways.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Where does the rulebook state that? Models are supposed to be on the game board right?

Models cannot move off of the board, but that is not the same thing.

Deadshane1 wrote:Half-on Half-off is not on the gameboard.

So how about this, is the ruler on the table?



I love that image.

That ruler is about three times more awesome than a Leman Russ Executioner (full-size, functioning). I'd allow it to say that it is 100% on the table simply because I'd be afraid it'd kick my ass if I said otherwise.

So thats what Schrodinger was talking about!

I get it now, the ruler is simultaneously on and off the table at the same time!

I'd put the LR on the edge of the table, immobilized, becuase I think it's a bit douchey to short someone on points (oh you loose 150 points of your 1500 point army, that sucks). I'd rather it be on the board with a chance to do something. I can see the other side of the coin though.

whalemusic360 wrote:I'd put the LR on the edge of the table, immobilized, becuase I think it's a bit douchey to short someone on points (oh you loose 150 points of your 1500 point army, that sucks). I'd rather it be on the board with a chance to do something. I can see the other side of the coin though.

But bringing in an Executioner from reserves through difficult terrain? Not the smartest decision on the part of his opponent...

whalemusic360 wrote:I'd put the LR on the edge of the table, immobilized, becuase I think it's a bit douchey to short someone on points (oh you loose 150 points of your 1500 point army, that sucks). I'd rather it be on the board with a chance to do something. I can see the other side of the coin though.

Pffft, if he rolls his biker squadron through said terrain and rolls five "1"'s, does he get to keep his squad? He took a risk, it bit him in the arse. If the terrain is flush with the tabletop, BL chump- thats what risks are about. If it's not flush with the tabletop then its immobolized with its bum hanging out. Move a LandRaider onto the table, and you will have a portion of your tank off the field... or even better, as someone mentioned, use a monolith

Jihallah wrote:

whalemusic360 wrote:I'd put the LR on the edge of the table, immobilized, becuase I think it's a bit douchey to short someone on points (oh you loose 150 points of your 1500 point army, that sucks). I'd rather it be on the board with a chance to do something. I can see the other side of the coin though.

Pffft, if he rolls his biker squadron through said terrain and rolls five "1"'s, does he get to keep his squad? He took a risk, it bit him in the arse. If the terrain is flush with the tabletop, BL chump- thats what risks are about. If it's not flush with the tabletop then its immobolized with its bum hanging out. Move a LandRaider onto the table, and you will have a portion of your tank off the field... or even better, as someone mentioned, use a monolith

Agreed.

Deadshane, it seems like you're making up rules to justify your benefit. The rulebook is not clear, and you and your opponent didn't agree on it beforehand.

4+ it, or decide before. You're not going to have the rules back you up on this one.

Well, the rulebook IS clear - if you can get even 0.000001" on, you are fine.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, the rulebook IS clear - if you can get even 0.000001" on, you are fine.

ref?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, the rulebook IS clear - if you can get even 0.000001" on, you are fine.

Agreed - 0.1" on the table is still on the table.

Additionally, if the model will not float in mid-air on the edge of the table you can take it off and just hold it in place every time you want to shoot/get shot at - see Wobbly Model Syndrome box in the movement section.

Of course, I'd probably just move the damn tank on and leave it there, immobilised, for the sake of simplicity....

The Book wrote:If the unit has a special rule forcing it to move in a specific direction (*example*) or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored in the phase when it arrives from Reserve.

The unit is being affected by a special rule that could stop it from moving. Ignore the rule.

Arctik - incorrect. You can ignroe the *units* special rules, not the rules of terrain on the table.

Epic - from the fact the reserve rules tell you to move onto the table, without qualifying "onto" both "entirely" and "partially" satisfy this requirement.

If that's how you choose to read it, it's still a Vehicle and hence a special rule applies.

Its not how I choose to read it, it is how the rule is written.

The rule lets you ignore Special rules of the *unit* that would prevent the unit from moving on. It does not allow you to ignore other rules that could stop you moving

The unit is a Vehicle. Special rules apply. You can't decide which rules are 'special'.
If a vehicle moves into difficult terrain and fails its test, it is stopped from moving. Hence, by the rules as written, a vehicle unit cannot be immobilised in the phase it arrives from Reserve because that would stop them from moving. It's not like I've come across this weird phenomenon before and I'm coming from a predetermined position - that's what the rules say.

Except they dont say that.

Is it a special rule OF THE UNIT? No, it is a special rule of the terrain (difficult or dangerous terrain) and as such the allowance to ignore special rules *of the unit* does not apply as it is not a special rule *of the unit*.

It cant be made much clearer than that....

It is not a special rule of the terrain, it is a special rule pertaining to vehicles under the 'Terrain Effects' heading in the vehicles section. It does not apply to anything but Vehicle units.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:It is not a special rule of the terrain, it is a special rule pertaining to vehicles under the 'Terrain Effects' heading in the vehicles section. It does not apply to anything but Vehicle units.

Yes its the vehicles rule ... yes it could stop it coming on ... yes ignored.

It doesn't have to be able to stop it coming on - it simply has to be able to stop it from moving. Apparently I can chuck a Grav-Tank 24" from Reserve onto the table and land in the middle of area terrain, and I don't have to take a test because it could stop me from moving that phase.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:It doesn't have to be able to stop it coming on - it simply has to be able to stop it from moving. Apparently I can chuck a Grav-Tank 24" from Reserve onto the table and land in the middle of area terrain, and I don't have to take a test because it could stop me from moving that phase.

If you were playing against Tri, you most certainly could. Just like if I were to deep-strike a monolith and it scattered onto impassible terrain, I wouldn't have to roll a mishap, because it could stop me from moving by destroying my monolith!

I like these made-up rules, let's play by them from now on.

Except that isnt what the rules say. But go ahead and play a houserule all you want...

You're going to actually have to use your words if you want to make a point, nos.

*shrug* Point was made, RAW explained (it isnt a special rule of the unit, but a consequence of entering terrain) and you choose to ignore it in favour of a house rule.

Nothing much more to be said - if you want to play a houserule, thats your prerogative.

nosferatu1001 wrote:*shrug* Point was made, RAW explained (it isnt a special rule of the unit, but a consequence of entering terrain) and you choose to ignore it in favour of a house rule.

Nothing much more to be said - if you want to play a houserule, thats your prerogative.

Uh. No.

Tri made that point.

Arctik's been arguing FOR exactly what you just said. (consequence of entering terrain, NOT a special rule of the unit)

Tri's houseruling, not Arctik.

Huh? If you reread it was Arctik who initially said it could be ignored - Tri agreed.

Nos is now correct. Regardless, the special rule could stop me from moving in the phase I entered from Reserve. Hence, the rule is ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Huh? If you reread it was Arctik who initially said it could be ignored - Tri agreed.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Nos is now correct. Regardless, the special rule could stop me from moving in the phase I entered from Reserve. Hence, the rule is ignored.

Eh, you're right, I wasn't paying attention.

In that case, no, Arctik, you are entirely incorrect.

It's not a special rule, it's a consequence of entering difficult or dangerous terrain.

By your logic, I could deep strike a Monolith on top of a building and not have to roll a mishap.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Nos is now correct. Regardless, the special rule could stop me from moving in the phase I entered from Reserve. Hence, the rule is ignored.

Which is why you are using a houserule, as the rules dont actually say that.

Is it a special rule of the unit, that exists entirely seperately of the board? No? Then it isnt ignored.

The rules about movement-restricting special rules during the phase you enter from reserves don't make any distinction regarding when movement-restricting rules come into effect - except that they cannot restrict movement during that phase.

Is a Wraithlord's 'Wraithsight' rule completely independent of the board? No, under normal circumstances it depends on something else. In this context it is ignored.

Mishaps do not restrict movement in any way - they are conditional and bring their own set of rules into play.

Apart from the mishap where you dont enter the board?

At least be consistent in applying a houserule, makes things less confusing.

Wraithsight is a special rule of the unit which could stop it coming on the board, so is ignored.

Dangerous terrain causing you to be immobilised is not a special rule of the unit that could stop you coming on the board. SO is not ignored.

Simples. Or play it your way and houserule it.

True its not a Special Rule as such but it so much simpler to play it as such ...

After all the only other option is wobbly model syndrome (page 13). Model is placed so it doesn't fall but every time some one needs to measure to it its replaced where it was immobilized.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apart from the mishap where you dont enter the board?

At least be consistent in applying a houserule, makes things less confusing.

Wraithsight is a special rule of the unit which could stop it coming on the board, so is ignored.

Dangerous terrain causing you to be immobilised is not a special rule of the unit that could stop you coming on the board. SO is not ignored.

Simples. Or play it your way and houserule it.

Where does the reserves rule say anything about coming onto the board, or effects that could stop you coming on to the board? It doesn't.

It refers only to rules that could stop you from from moving during that phase. What rules are you talking about?

In the case of Mishaps, you cannot deploy - movement is not a factor - you cannot even enter the board to attempt to move. It is completely different and irrelevant to this case.

The reserves rule is entirely 100% about moving onto the board, as that is, you know, what happens during arriving from reserves....

As I said: if you want to houserule it, that is fine. Just be aware you are doing so.

To get back to the original question: I would house rule it. Being partially on the table as a unit isn't RAW for alive, though neither is it dead under RAW... given that the only line that seems to address this come under the 'falling back' paragraphs. If he just couldn't arrive from reserve because he wasn't able to move onto the table... then that IS dead. Dead, dead, dead. Just like anything else that arrives from reserve and cannot deploy.

Once again, I'm going to ask that the 0.00001" argument go away. Back in the box. For entirely different reasons this time: things will move about during a game. Little bumps to the table do this, so whatever was placed adjacent to a table edge ought to be treated as such, if even random bumps and tiny shifts have opened up a small space.

Slackermages - except you have no rules to back up your assertion that "unable to deploy = dead" - it is purely a houserule; RAW the game halts.

A unit even partially on the table is alive and able to participate, as it fulfills the rules for moving on from reserves.

To assume that moving on == not(moving off) is logically fallacious. In other words moving off the table is entirely different to moving onto the table, and just because being partially off == dead when falling back does not mean the same when moving on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The reserves rule is entirely 100% about moving onto the board, as that is, you know, what happens during arriving from reserves....

As I said: if you want to houserule it, that is fine. Just be aware you are doing so.

All that is said about 'moving onto the board' is When a Reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge. It then explains that the movement is measured from the edge of the board. All other rules as written pertain to 'special' (i.e. pertaining to a specific condition) rules that either force movement or 'could stop it (the unit) from moving'.

If you want to ignore rules, that is fine. Just don't be so obstinate when doing so.

So you dont think that ignoring rules that could stop you moving onto the board is only limited to the point at which you move onto the board? Somehow it applies to the whole phase?

Interesting. Nice lack of context there.

RAW: 'The rule is ignored in the phase when it arrives from Reserve.'

It's completely in context.

And, as was pointed out, is the Terrain rule a special rule of the unit?

No.

No, the 'Terrain rule' is not a special rule of the unit. There is no such 'Terrain rule'.

It is a Vehicle, and Vehicles have special rules regarding entering terrain that could stop the unit from moving. All of the conditions are met and you are trying to indroduce conditions that don't exist to refute what is clearly written.

Is the terrain immobilising you a special rule of the unit? No.

It is a consequence of the special rule "difficult terrain" which is a special rule of the terrain.

What is clearlty written /= what you are actually stating. Your method IS a houserule

No, Vehicles treat terrain differently. It is described in the Vehicles section, not the Terrain section. No normal Terrain conditions apply.
By your logic, Wraithlords are subject to Wraithsight when entering the table from Reserve simply because the Wraithlord's special rule has a condition referring to 'Psykers', which are mentioned in a different part of the BrB, and are completely out of context to what is happening...

Arctik, look at the unit's entry in the codex. Is there a special rule listed in that entry that says anything about terrain and immobilization, etc? No, there is not. Ergo, the rule is NOT a special rule of the unit attempting to enter. It is a core rule within the game that applies to all non-walker, non-skimmer vehicles, and as such, is not ignored. If it is not a UNIT special rule, it does not apply in this situation.

hmm... consider the following.

Mobile terrain (ones you can move about) will never be flush to the board edge without going down to an atomic level. There will always be at least a millionth of a millimetre reamaining, where RAW you could wobbly model your way onto the board...

Now that rule about ignoring special rules... even if you have moved a millionth of a millimetre, you have still moved? So the terrain cannot stop you moving, you have already moved.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:No, Vehicles treat terrain differently. It is described in the Vehicles section, not the Terrain section. No normal Terrain conditions apply.
By your logic, Wraithlords are subject to Wraithsight when entering the table from Reserve simply because the Wraithlord's special rule has a condition referring to 'Psykers', which are mentioned in a different part of the BrB, and are completely out of context to what is happening...

Show me the special rule within the UNIT entry (where you are told to look, by the way) that states it is immobilised.
Cant find it?
Guess it isnt ignored then.

Wraithsight states they will not move, and is in the special rules for the entry (gasp! who;d have thought!) and so IS ignored.

Not that I necessarily agree, but the unit listing "Vehicle" is what makes it relevant to what he is saying--as I read it.

And either way, it has no bearing at all upon Deep Striking or most other types of specialized deployment.
Immobilized (etc.) on deepstrike does not stop you moving onto the board, it Immobilizes the unit after it does so.

All rules that can come into effect for a given unit are 'special' by very definition. The list given in the unit entry are only those rules that do not otherwise apply automatically to the unit type. If they apply specifically to the unit type, they are special rules.
As there is no specific definition of 'special rules' in the BrB, only the definitions of the words themselves can be used. Universal special rules are defined for consistency but do not make any ruling on what constitutes a special rule. 'Special rules' and 'core rules' are not seperated by any given definition and you cannot pretend there is a difference. The words 'special rules' are used in different contexts throughout all of the books.

I'm off to bed. Pleasure debating with ya's!

SO you are saying that rules that apply to every vehicle in every codex are special?

No, sorry, doesnt work that way.

Page number?

See: the English language, definition of special.

Otherwise I will ask you for a page number that defines the word "the". Once you've found that please provide one for "a"

I play Tyranids.

Seems special to me that you (can) get immobilized moving onto the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SO you are saying that rules that apply to every vehicle in every codex are special?

Do all units follow that rule?

Do all vehicles follow that rule?

Hint: The answer to both is "No".

nosferatu1001 wrote:See: the English language, definition of special.

Having a specific function. Pertaining to particular purpose. Having limited scope. To be distinct or exceptional among a kind (that 'kind' being 'unit' in this case).

So it is exceptional that vehicles follow a general rule for vehicles in the rulebook?

Is AV a special rule now? How about movement for infantry? That's special after all!

Hint: the above is sarcasm. If you are seriously of the belief that a rule that applies to all non-skimmer, non-walker vehicles is truly special, then well done.

Becoming immobilised from attempting to move through difficult terrain as a vehicle i'd consider a rule.
It applies to all vehicles, barring a special rule (or maybe specialer rule) such as Skimmer, or Walker.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So it is exceptional that vehicles follow a general rule for vehicles in the rulebook?

Is AV a special rule now? How about movement for infantry?

Would it matter if they were? What would be influenced if so?

I realize that the response is meant as hyperbole, but what would change if the answer is actually "Yes"?

With USRs being the only defined univeral rules, it could be assumed that the others are special.

Not something I would claim in a game if it helped me, but still seems hard to disprove other than saying "Do you need 'is' defined as well?" Which, if you notice, does not disprove anything other than the desire (ability?) to answer the actual question.

Ok, so arguing about what is and isn't a special rule is pointless as the Rulebook clearly defines special rules. If something is a special rule it is listed as such (Universal Special Rules for example) a special rule is anything that ignores the normal rule set and instead replaces it with this one.

Arctik based on your argument vehicles would not treat difficult terrain as dangerous terrain but would instead treat it as difficult terrain. As in the rulebook it only says under the vehicles section that they "Treat difficult terrain as dangerous terrain". That is the "special" rule you're referring to ignoring. Vehicles do not ignore all terrain so without the above special rule they would treat difficult terrain as difficult terrain. So your vehicles would not have to take a dangerous terrain test they would instead have to roll 2d6 for movement like infantry, unfortunately this is not the case.

You're argument that the rules underneath the vehicle section are special rules is refuted by the rulebook itself because it goes out of its way to define what special rules are, from your logic all rules are special and therefore unit types and movement types do not exist, so for example a tactical squad could turbo boost in the turn they enter from reserve because there are no rules saying they can't because they are all "special" rules regarding infantry and since that section is now blank in the rulebook for the turn they enter from reserve there's nothing saying I can't but also that turbo boost is a "special" rule for bikes but that doesn't matter because bikes is blank as well and turbo boost doesn't exist, if we go on really there is nothing defining how far my tactical squad can and can't move in this turn whether it be 1" or 48".

No, they are the only universal SPECIAL rules. Your implication is that every rule in the rulebook is special, which doesnt exactly work.

A rule that every vehicle has is unlikely to fit anyones definition of "special". By your logic difficult terrain tests, which could stop a unit fully getting on the board, are a special rule of the unit and so would be ignored. Meaning they could have omitted the word "special" entirely. Assumign they meant special as in "exceptional", then vehicles being immoblised is not an exception for a Leman Russ, it is the norm.

(the subject is the Leman Russ; does the Russ have a special rule that stops it getting on the board? No - vehicles have a rule, which is a general rule)

BTW the define "the" was serious: you are asking where the rule for an English word is, when it has no 40k-specific definition. The only answer is "the English language".

Thanks, TheBlackVanguard.

I still think the vehicle should be immobilized on the table like that ruler. WMS to keep it on.

No rule is broken, and only one is questionable.

Maybe.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, they are the only UNIVERSAL special rules.

Works better emphasized this way.

What USR means is that, despite these being in the BRB (and thus part of the general rules of the game) they are still considered to be special rules.

A rule that applies to all vehicles from the general rules is not, by any stretch of the word, a special rule.

Just for reference, nosferatu1001, I think you are basically correct. I just wanted to nitpick so if it is brought up in person I already have the relevant portions in mind.

My first post was trying (poorly) to agree with that sentiment, the rest poking for details.

Wow just reread page 57 and Terrain Effects might not work as we've been playing it ...

"Roll a D6 for every vehicle that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain during its move."

In other words we don't test till after its finished moving; at which point it comes crashing to a stop if it fails the test.

Tri wrote:Wow just reread page 57 and Terrain Effects might not work as we've been playing it ...

"Roll a D6 for every vehicle that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain during its move."

In other words we don't test till after its finished moving; at which point it comes crashing to a stop if it fails the test.

But you've conveniently ignored the sentence after the next one:

"A result of 1 means that
the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an
Immobilised damage result, so if it was attempting to
enter difficult terrain it stops just outside."

Emphasis mine.

It stops just outside if it rolls a 1.

Just outside is off the board.

Vehicle is destroyed.

However, if "just outside" is ON the board, vehicle is not destroyed.

This was all stated on page 1 of this thread.

SaintHazard wrote:

Tri wrote:Wow just reread page 57 and Terrain Effects might not work as we've been playing it ...

"Roll a D6 for every vehicle that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain during its move."

In other words we don't test till after its finished moving; at which point it comes crashing to a stop if it fails the test.

But you've conveniently ignored the sentence after the next one:

"A result of 1 means that
the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an
Immobilised damage result, so if it was attempting to
enter difficult terrain it stops just outside."

Emphasis mine.

It stops just outside if it rolls a 1.

Just outside is off the board.

Vehicle is destroyed.

However, if "just outside" is ON the board, vehicle is not destroyed.

This was all stated on page 1 of this thread.

... I didn't ignore it just doesn't make senses since you can't roll a D6 till after its finished its move; at which point it may have passed right through the terrain. There is also nothing to say that the edge of the board is the start of the difficult terrain, you could as easily say it counted as starting in difficult terrain.

i'm with saint and nos on this it clearly states that it has to be a special rule of thet unit, not that units type but the individual unit

therefore it is not ignored and the vehicle is immkoobilised at the edge of the terrain piece if that terrain piece is flush or overhanging the table edge then it is immobilised outside of the filed of battle

by your reasoning if i had an intirely outflanking army and my opponent did the "kroot wall" trick (such has happened in a well documented case) then i could just ignore the fact thet i am not usually allowed to go with in 1" of my opponents models and just jump straight over him

you guys are just wrong face it

vehicle is immobilised at the edge of the terrain piece - fact

Tri wrote:... I didn't ignore it just doesn't make senses since you can't roll a D6 till after its finished its move; at which point it may have passed right through the terrain. There is also nothing to say that the edge of the board is the start of the difficult terrain, you could as easily say it counted as starting in difficult terrain.

Uh. No. You roll a D6 when you attempt to enter difficult terrain, or, for a skimmer, land there. Not after you've moved.

It's in the sentence right after the one you quote, and right before the one I quoted. So now you're ignoring two sentences.

"A result of 2-6 on the dice means that the
vehicle can carry on moving."

"Carry on moving," as in, you move. You enter difficult terrain. You roll. You pass. You continue moving. Or, you fail, and you place the vehicle, as I said, just outside of the terrain.

If you're starting your move "in reserve," as in, "off the table," and the terrain begins at the table edge, when you fail that test, you place the vehicle outside of the terrain, off the table. Thus is the vehicle destroyed.

SaintHazard wrote:
If you're starting your move "in reserve," as in, "off the table," and the terrain begins at the table edge, when you fail that test, you place the vehicle outside of the terrain, off the table. Thus is the vehicle destroyed.

SaintHazard wrote:Just outside is off the board.

Vehicle is destroyed.

This is the part I have not read in the rules.

kirsanth wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Just outside is off the board.

Vehicle is destroyed.

This is the part I have not read in the rules.

If the terrain ends at the table edge, just outside of the terrain is, by definition, off the table.

If you are placing the model on the table, you are placing it in terrain. Illegally.

SaintHazard wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Just outside is off the board.

Vehicle is destroyed.

This is the part I have not read in the rules.

If the terrain ends at the table edge, just outside of the terrain is, by definition, off the table.

If you are placing the model on the table, you are placing it in terrain. Illegally.

Sure, but so is not placing them on the table illegal. So is counting them as destroyed.

The idea that confounds things is that there is NOT a stipulation for what occurs that I have seen.

SaintHazard wrote:
Uh. No. You roll a D6 when you attempt to enter difficult terrain, or, for a skimmer, land there. Not after you've moved.

"Roll a D6 for every vehicle that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain during its move." I see no attempting here. Only roll for vehicles that have.

It's in the sentence right after the one you quote, and right before the one I quoted. So now you're ignoring two sentences.

"A result of 2-6 on the dice means that the
vehicle can carry on moving."

"Carry on moving," as in, you move. You enter difficult terrain. You roll. You pass. You continue moving. Or, you fail, and you place the vehicle, as I said, just outside of the terrain.

can carry on moving can also include next phase, turn or other opportunity to move.

If you're starting your move "in reserve," as in, "off the table," and the terrain begins at the table edge, when you fail that test, you place the vehicle outside of the terrain, off the table. Thus is the vehicle destroyed.

Nothing destroys a model unable to enter. Area terrain is defined by you and I; personally I would state that anything that is right on the edge continues on past it so tanks don't get stuck. If you don't like that WMS kicks in and the tank moves back to where it was immobilized for every measurement. Nether way breaks any rules.

But there are rules for deploying a vehicle off the board when coming in from reserve.

Specifically, Deep Striking and scattering off the board.

Not sure how it'd interact with normal reserves coming in from a board edge, though.

DS =/= reserves

Tri wrote:DS =/= reserves

That's my point exactly. Two different rulesets that do interact with one another. I'm not sure how Deep Strike Mishap rules would apply to coming in from reserves, if at all.

Kirsanth may be right in that there are no clear rules to govern this scenario.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Arctik - incorrect. You can ignroe the *units* special rules, not the rules of terrain on the table.

Epic - from the fact the reserve rules tell you to move onto the table, without qualifying "onto" both "entirely" and "partially" satisfy this requirement.

So I can move half of a 10 men squad onto the board from reserves instead of the entire squad?

Yes, however you would be unable to do anything withthe 5 that didnt come on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, however you would be unable to do anything withthe 5 that didnt come on.

So ending your move, either partially or wholly, off the board doesn't mean that unit or units are destroyed even though "the edge of the board is the edge of the world"?

I mean, if a model (vehicle or infantry) is even partially in DT it is still counted as being wholly in DT, so why is it not the same for the edge of the world? Sure, the vehicle/squad could begin the move off the board and move partially on the board, but if it's not all the way on when it ends its' move then it's still not really on the board.

Like with the example I said, the 5 guys off the board are not coming in from reserves anymore on the turn after they arrived from reserves, as they are off the board at the beginning of the next turn and are not in reserves anymore, would they not be counted as destroyed at that point since they are not in play and not in reserve?

The restriction, as has been said, is against moving off of the board.

Not moving onto the board.

It could be argued that the 5 on, 5 off is disallowed as "each model's move" is stipulated to be measured from the board edge during the forced move of the unit onto the table.

It is not solid, but there is no way to move them onto the table if the unit is not in reserve--nor is there a rule saying they are destroyed--nor can you deploy half of a unit.

Kevin - because moving OFF the board is NOT the same as moving ON to the board.

A restriction or rule affecting one does not mean you can apply that same rule to the other.

kirsanth wrote:The restriction, as has been said, is against moving off of the board.

Not moving onto the board.

It could be argued that the 5 on, 5 off is disallowed as "each model's move" is stipulated to be measured from the board edge during the forced move of the unit onto the table.

It is not solid, but there is no way to move them onto the table if the unit is not in reserve--nor is there a rule saying they are destroyed--nor can you deploy half of a unit.

Oh I understand what everyone has been saying about the difference of moving off vs. moving on the board but I'm referencing more specifically about ending a move with a unit off the board, the means of how it happened does not matter (barring the forced running away of a broken unit).

Hm, I'd have to comb over the book more but I'll probably forget when I go home anyway. Not really a concern of mine anyway with the army I play. Still an interesting conundrum to say the least.

The unit is partially off the board, but because it was not falling back nothing happens.

Had a thought on the 10 man squad thing - you are required to endf your move in coherency; any models NOT on the table (even 0.00001") would NOT be in coherency (you cannot measure to them) therefore you would have to bring them on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The unit is partially off the board, but because it was not falling back nothing happens.

Had a thought on the 10 man squad thing - you are required to endf your move in coherency; any models NOT on the table (even 0.00001") would NOT be in coherency (you cannot measure to them) therefore you would have to bring them on.

Mm, that's a good point.

Ok, just for simplicity's sake.

Note: a unit that's entered from reserve, but not yet moved, has entered play.

Has anyone managed to locate the rules where it says that a model that's not on the table is destroyed?
I skimmed the pages, but couldn't find anyone giving a good reference. If there are no such rule, the unit is not destroyed. I, myself, fail to find any rule which says a unit actually has to be on the table, all I find is obligations to enter fully onto the table and never leave it - which just isn't the same thing.

Perfectly honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is and why a unit can't be partly off the table if the rules force them to be.

@ Page 2: Wraithsight is tested at the beginning of the turn (prior to the movement phase), and tests are only taken by models in play. A Wraithguard/lord isn't in play in the beginning of the turn it enters from reserve, so it can't test for wraithsight and as such can't be immobilized from the test. Also, it's very clearly listed as a special rule.

@ Special rules: all units in modern (4e+) codices specifically list special rules. No need to get down and dirty defining what is special and what is not.

kirsanth wrote:Thanks, TheBlackVanguard.

I still think the vehicle should be immobilized on the table like that ruler. WMS to keep it on.

No rule is broken, and only one is questionable.

Maybe.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, they are the only UNIVERSAL special rules.

Works better emphasized this way.

Your welcome.

Mahtamori wrote:Ok, just for simplicity's sake.

Note: a unit that's entered from reserve, but not yet moved, has entered play.

Has anyone managed to locate the rules where it says that a model that's not on the table is destroyed?...

well by default Models that are not on the table are not in play. If they retreat and touch the table edge they are destroyed.

Drop pods that scatter off the table roll on the deep strike mishap table. so they might be destroyed.

Interesting issue here.

I would play it that if any model is off the table, even partially, That model should be considered out of play.

This:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The unit is partially off the board, but because it was not falling back nothing happens.

Had a thought on the 10 man squad thing - you are required to endf your move in coherency; any models NOT on the table (even 0.00001" would NOT be in coherency (you cannot measure to them) therefore you would have to bring them on.

> this:

DeathReaper wrote:well by default Models that are not on the table are not in play. If they retreat and touch the table edge they are destroyed.

Drop pods that scatter off the table roll on the deep strike mishap table. so they might be destroyed.

Interesting issue here.

I would play it that if any model is off the table, even partially, That model should be considered out of play.

No rules back "it's destroyed" camp any more than anything else. Full stop.

Rules do not cover what happens when a unit cannot move onto the table--if you think otherwise, please, please post a page number.

Playing vs. someone that has something happen outside of the rules is not a reason to destroy the unit that caused the issue.

If it were my unit, sure, I would even suggest it as viable.

So RAW = nothing.
RAI = less than RAW.
How I would play it = less advantageous to MYSELF.

Deathreaper -please find a rule that states a model partially on the table is out of play. It clearly isnt as it has fulfilled the rules for moving on.

ALso you are in essence stting a monolith entering from reserves is destroyed, as it CANNOT move fully onto the table.

There is NO rule stating that off == destroyed. It is a houserule, same as the houserule people tend to use when board edges are blocked for reserves entering.

>Well RAW its on the table, WMS kicks in and you play on as normal.
>It may be RAI that tanks are ether destroyed, mishap, or ignore the rule but there really is nothing that backs those.
>Its also a possible reading of RAW the DT test does not kick in till after the tank has finished moving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Deathreaper -please find a rule that states a model partially on the table is out of play. It clearly isnt as it has fulfilled the rules for moving on.

ALso you are in essence stting a monolith entering from reserves is destroyed, as it CANNOT move fully onto the table.

There is NO rule stating that off == destroyed. It is a houserule, same as the houserule people tend to use when board edges are blocked for reserves entering.

Monoliths are exactly 6" across. At least mine are. We measured them one time when I played a game against my buddy where he had to break through a defense wall that only had a 12" gap and we found that two monoliths were exactly 12" across and could block it entirely.

Which would leave them touching the board edge, even so--which does not avoid the issue, really.

Monoliths are just over 6" across. Having measured this previously to seee if they could entirely move onto the board.

If you're using the whippy sticks their "6"" is not actually 6"....

kirsanth wrote:Which would leave them touching the board edge, even so--which does not avoid the issue, really.

Touching =\= over.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Monoliths are just over 6" across. Having measured this previously to seee if they could entirely move onto the board.

If you're using the whippy sticks their "6"" is not actually 6"....

Nope, I use a tape measure and the monoliths I have are exactly 6" from corner to corner.

Kevin949 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Which would leave them touching the board edge, even so--which does not avoid the issue, really.

Touching =\= over.

Moving onto the board ≠ Moving off of the board.

The rules for removing models require touching the table edge and never mention the models have to move over the edge.

Kevin949 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The restriction, as has been said, is against moving off of the board.

Not moving onto the board.

It could be argued that the 5 on, 5 off is disallowed as "each model's move" is stipulated to be measured from the board edge during the forced move of the unit onto the table.

It is not solid, but there is no way to move them onto the table if the unit is not in reserve--nor is there a rule saying they are destroyed--nor can you deploy half of a unit.

Oh I understand what everyone has been saying about the difference of moving off vs. moving on the board but I'm referencing more specifically about ending a move with a unit off the board, the means of how it happened does not matter (barring the forced running away of a broken unit).

Hm, I'd have to comb over the book more but I'll probably forget when I go home anyway. Not really a concern of mine anyway with the army I play. Still an interesting conundrum to say the least.

kirsanth wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Which would leave them touching the board edge, even so--which does not avoid the issue, really.

Touching =\= over.

Moving onto the board ≠ Moving off of the board.

The rules for removing models require touching the table edge and never mention the models have to move over the edge.

Here, I quoted myself from the top of the page where I mentioned that I wasn't talking about moving onto or off of the board. Personally, I'm done with that debate as there is no simple answer without divine intervention.

Well there IS a simple answer: as long as you can move even 0.000001" onto the board, you have legally arrived from reserves.

End of.

I suppose in the strictest sense of the rule, but the spirit of the game dies a little bit with stuff like this.

Why? Do you think a Baneblade should never be able to arrive from reserve (plastic one)?

In your opinion the "spirit of the game" has something to say about this. In my opinion denying people the abilituy to bring on 250 points worth of tank, going against the rules in order to do so, does far more to harm the "spirit of the game" than allowing them to bring it on, as the rules allow.

Not saying that, just that taking technicalities to a grievous length and squeezing every little thing out of minor oversights takes away from the fun of the game. I wouldn't deny someone bringing a vehicle on the board but I also don't play the game to the strict extent that some people seem to. *Shrug*

Though I also don't know how wide a baneblade is as it might be possible for it to move onto the board and then pivot so that it is entirely on the board, just facing sideways from the edge it entered from. Also, most vehicles are able to move up to 12" anyway, if not more. Again, I don't know the baneblade rules so it might not be able to. Either way, I wouldn't disallow it, but if it was immobilized before even getting on the board that's a different story.

Let's say there is a terrain pieces across every edge of the entire board and they're laid in such a way so that the edge of the terrain piece is just barely over the edge of the board. The vehicle gets immobilized from a DT test when arriving from reserves, but all terrain is just outside of the board edge so the vehicle never made it onto the board.

Kevin949 wrote: taking technicalities to a grievous length and squeezing every little thing out of minor oversights takes away from the fun of the game. I wouldn't deny someone bringing a vehicle on the board but . . .if it was immobilized before even getting on the board that's a different story.

That sounds conflicting to me when discussing your opponent's vehicle.

Did I miss something?

I do not mean to edit your text for devious effect, I am mostly wondering if that is what you meant.

Kevin949 wrote:Not saying that, just that taking technicalities to a grievous length and squeezing every little thing out of minor oversights takes away from the fun of the game. I wouldn't deny someone bringing a vehicle on the board but I also don't play the game to the strict extent that some people seem to. *Shrug*

The reason we interpret RAW literally is to keep the rules from becoming muddied by multiple interpretations.

What sounds more fun to you: a game with strict rules, or a game with rules so lax that everyone has their own idea of how the game is played, causing massive confusion every single time you sit down with a new opponent?

If I had to sit down for an hour before every single game I played and discuss how to play every rule in the book, it'd be horrid. I'd never play again.

But if rules are interpreted literally, it creates a standard from which the majority of players can work without confusion or conflict.

The baneblade can only move 6" a turn, and is more than 6" wide.

Given you have set up terrain outside the board, you are already in Houserules territory.

if the terrain is placed against board edge, and tank playher makes mistake of bringing his tank into that terrain, its his own fault, if it gets immobilized. since i cant find anything that backs either side, i would just high dice it. on a high/low roll it manages to get partially inside the terrain before breaking (momentum and such) otherwise it gets stuck before it enters, and is not able to enter the game. i woul count it as either still in reserve when game ends, or worth half VP for being immobilized, it just never does anything. although honestly, in the intrest of having a good game i would let him place the tank in the terrain immobilized and flush aginst the table edge.

Ah, it's this thread again.

Yes, you can be partially off the board. You won't be destoyed yadda yadda yadda.

Nos has it explained sufficiently.

I think the only query now is what happens if you have terrain absolutely, dead on flush with the edge - as you never enter the board. To be honest the simplest solution is DONT do that...

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think the only query now is what happens if you have terrain absolutely, dead on flush with the edge - as you never enter the board. To be honest the simplest solution is DONT do that...

Going back to DT i would count any terrain on the edge as extending beyond the board when we set the rules for the terrain. That way the tank start in DT and is not pushed out by the DT terrain rules (which only kick in after its moved)

kirsanth wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: taking technicalities to a grievous length and squeezing every little thing out of minor oversights takes away from the fun of the game. I wouldn't deny someone bringing a vehicle on the board but . . .if it was immobilized before even getting on the board that's a different story.

That sounds conflicting to me when discussing your opponent's vehicle.

Did I miss something?

I do not mean to edit your text for devious effect, I am mostly wondering if that is what you meant.

I meant it that I wouldn't tell someone they couldn't come in from reserves if their vehicle couldn't make it onto the board 100% of the way but if it couldn't make it on the board at all, even a micro fraction of an inch then that is a different situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Not saying that, just that taking technicalities to a grievous length and squeezing every little thing out of minor oversights takes away from the fun of the game. I wouldn't deny someone bringing a vehicle on the board but I also don't play the game to the strict extent that some people seem to. *Shrug*

The reason we interpret RAW literally is to keep the rules from becoming muddied by multiple interpretations.

What sounds more fun to you: a game with strict rules, or a game with rules so lax that everyone has their own idea of how the game is played, causing massive confusion every single time you sit down with a new opponent?

If I had to sit down for an hour before every single game I played and discuss how to play every rule in the book, it'd be horrid. I'd never play again.

But if rules are interpreted literally, it creates a standard from which the majority of players can work without confusion or conflict.

There is much of a gray area that is never touched and being too strict or too lenient will always result in questions and 50/50 roll offs.

If you start the movement in DT and get immobilised, you don't get to move. Regardless, there's actually no rules which say the vehicle is destroyed if it doesn't make it on the game area.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The baneblade can only move 6" a turn, and is more than 6" wide.

Given you have set up terrain outside the board, you are already in Houserules territory.

Hm? Maybe there is something I'm missing, I didn't know you couldn't set up terrain that close to a board edge. If "on the board" is construed as .00000001" on then I don't see why it's houserule territory unless there is something I'm missing (likely).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think the only query now is what happens if you have terrain absolutely, dead on flush with the edge - as you never enter the board. To be honest the simplest solution is DONT do that...

I agree 100% with this.

You said you were setting up terrain OUTSIDE the board - there are only rules for setting terrain up ON the board.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You said you were setting up terrain OUTSIDE the board - there are only rules for setting terrain up ON the board.

No, I said only the very edge of the terrain (use walls or fences for reference, not buildings and craters) will hang slightly over the edge. It's still on the board. By your own admission, .00001" is still "on" the board.

yeah,
It seems to me that RAI goes to lengths ensure that models are always placed on the table.
IMO I'd say that the the tank is placed on the board and then immobilized.

Panic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Deathreaper -please find a rule that states a model partially on the table is out of play. It clearly isnt as it has fulfilled the rules for moving on.

ALso you are in essence stting a monolith entering from reserves is destroyed, as it CANNOT move fully onto the table.

There is NO rule stating that off == destroyed. It is a houserule, same as the houserule people tend to use when board edges are blocked for reserves entering.

Well P.92 under 'Pitched Battle' has you deploy in your half of the table (not outside of, or partially on the table), therefore anything else must = in reserve/out of play.

ChrisCP wrote:

They are partially on the table, but they are not on the table.

If only a part of them are in your table half, the other part of them, by default, are not in your table half, so thats a negative.

when looking at deploying in your table half, the whole model must be in your table half. If part of the model is not in your table half then they are breaking the rules. since the rules say models are to be placed in your table half.

Deathreaper - not entirely sure what you're going on about, but this is "moving on from reserves"

Also you contradict yourself. Being partially on the table is indeed being ON the table -please state how this is not the case. Lignuistically I can prove I am on the table, and Indeed have done so repeatedly.

I just did it with set theory too... but, hey

True - it was just the statement that "you cna be partially on the table, but you arent on the table" being so blindingly self contradicting its amazing.

Perhaps Reaper is subconsciously inserting"fully" in front of "on the table"

But what about vehicles? Their hull is never fully on the table

The set theorey example is good, except that if the rules are read so that on the table and off the table are mutually exclusive sets there is no overlap of those two sets. So the diagram would only work if the set of on the table and the set of off the table do overlap...which is the point of that particular arguement. Its a good way to show the one side of the arguement, but the other side would show two circles that do not overlap at all.


Another point: if the vehicle is immobilized with its weapons off of the table, do the rules allow it to shoot? We know where the weapon is at and can measure from it...but the weapon would most definitely be off of the table itself.


Sliggoth

whalemusic360 wrote:I'd put the LR on the edge of the table, immobilized, becuase I think it's a bit douchey to short someone on points (oh you loose 150 points of your 1500 point army, that sucks). I'd rather it be on the board with a chance to do something. I can see the other side of the coin though.

This is what I would do ,it's a game and I always give people the best chance they can to play with their toys. If it's a friendly game then what does it matter and if it's a tournament and you need to rules lawyer it to win then your a loser anyways.

ChrisCP wrote:But what about vehicles? Their hull is never fully on the table

Obviously this means all vehicles are automatically destroyed, since I can point to parts of their hulls that are not, in fact, touching the table!

But theyre not moving off the table, so all is good!

nosferatu1001 wrote:But theyre not moving off the table, so all is good!

OH LAWD

When you move your vehicles, parts of them are not on the table whilst moving!

They are literally moving off the table!

Black is white, up is down!

I'M SO CONFUSED.

And never, ever add retro rockets to your Land Raider. It may move up, which is off, and so automatically explodes in mid air...

I don't even want to think about the implications with skimmers.

SaintHazard wrote:I don't even want to think about the implications with skimmers.

Skimmers are funny, because the rules say they can never leave their base.

but my skimmers base is under my bed

does that mean it has to stay there?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Deathreaper - not entirely sure what you're going on about, but this is "moving on from reserves"

Also you contradict yourself. Being partially on the table is indeed being ON the table -please state how this is not the case. Lignuistically I can prove I am on the table, and Indeed have done so repeatedly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:True - it was just the statement that "you cna be partially on the table, but you arent on the table" being so blindingly self contradicting its amazing.

Perhaps Reaper is subconsciously inserting"fully" in front of "on the table"

the rules state that you have to be on the table. if any part of the base is not on the table then by default you have broken this rule.

Being partially on the table is not "on the table" Since part of your base is not on the table.

you have to ask yourself "is this model on the table" if the answer is yes, then you are within the rules, if the answer is yes and no (in the case of a partial on/off scenario) then you are not within the rules.

Vehicles are different in the fact that they have no base as supplied by GW, so you just have to look at this situation from a blast marker top down point of view. (the whole model must be on the table. If it is not on the table it, by default, must be out of play.)

I'd give it a 51/49 rule personally, if it came down to it. If you can get 51% or more of the vehicle on the table when coming in from reserves, it's in play. 49% or less and it's out of play and can't shoot or be shot.

Except that is not what the rules ask.

They ask you to move onto the table. By moving PARTIALLY onto the table, you HAVE fulfilled this rule because they *do not* use the word "fully" or other similar qualifier to this.

You may state otherwise, but the English language is against you on this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that is not what the rules ask.

They ask you to move onto the table. By moving PARTIALLY onto the table, you HAVE fulfilled this rule because they *do not* use the word "fully" or other similar qualifier to this.

You may state otherwise, but the English language is against you on this.

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that is not what the rules ask.

They ask you to move onto the table. By moving PARTIALLY onto the table, you HAVE fulfilled this rule because they *do not* use the word "fully" or other similar qualifier to this.

You may state otherwise, but the English language is against you on this.

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

There is no default defined (do you have a page reference?).

You can't ask for a page reference simply because you yourself has none. We've already told you for this line of argument that there will be no page reference, since there doesn't exist one and that one is not needed to back our argument up.

However, to destroy or remove a model from play, you DO need the rules to tell you how and when to do that, so where's your reference?

DeathReaper wrote:

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

No, try that again. You are trying to claim that, because it does NOT state "fully" on, it still actuall means that "by default"?

Sorry, that isnt how English, nor these rules written in English, works.

You are allowed to move partially ON because the rule only requires you to move ON. If you move partially ON you are still, actually, ON the table. Not sure how to explain this any more simply to you.

If you wish to debat e further, please find a page number that defines that "onto" actually means, by default "fully onto". Anything?

I can't believe he is arguing against the venn diagram. That is about as simple as he can make it, the model is ON THE TABLE. Even if it is only partially.

EDIT- double psot

If the terrain has been defined at the start of the game to go right to the edge of the table, the tank coming in gets stopped outside, that is, off the edge of the table.

It is a basic principle that stuff which isn't on the table can't be in the game, else Tau would be lobbing in Seeker missiles all day long.

For my opinion, I am happy to see the tank dead off the edge of the table and out of the game.

If you want to argue about that, you need to acknowledge that the rules don't make sense in this situation, and come to a reasonable compromise.

If it was a friendly game and my opponent was visibly upset by his disaster, I would let the tank be parked at the edge of the table, and make a sensible adjustment to range when it fires or is shot at.

Life is too short to nitpick about stupidities in the rules.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the terrain has been defined at the start of the game to go right to the edge of the table, the tank coming in gets stopped outside, that is, off the edge of the table.

It is a basic principle that stuff which isn't on the table can't be in the game, else Tau would be lobbing in Seeker missiles all day long.

For my opinion, I am happy to see the tank dead off the edge of the table and out of the game.

If you want to argue about that, you need to acknowledge that the rules don't make sense in this situation, and come to a reasonable compromise.

If it was a friendly game and my opponent was visibly upset by his disaster, I would let the tank be parked at the edge of the table, and make a sensible adjustment to range when it fires or is shot at.

Life is too short to nitpick about stupidities in the rules.

+1 lock this thread please its going no where and is making me sad

Actually, that's an entirely different line of argument. Here Kilkrazy claims that the model does not make it into play - which is an entirely a more appropriate line of argument* - but then you get a completely different follow-up questions; if they do not manage to get into play, how can it be damaged from terrain?

Also, if it is damaged to immobility and still not in play, then it is still in reserves, and since it is now immobilized, it is now deployed through deep striking (models permanently immobile arrive as such). Depending on how much weight you put on "permanently" (does that imply permanently before and after or just after, and is it permanent in an army which can repair immobilized results?).

In either case, Kilkrazy, Tau would not be allowed to lob missiles from reserves or deep strike forces since those have not entered play until they have made their move after succeeding a reserve roll. Note that the rules only give you permission to place the model after you've began the arriving movement.

* For a model to be destroyed, the rules must state it is destroyed - the rules never state the model is destroyed if it is off the table or in contact with the table edge, unless the unit is retreating and is in process of making it's compulsory movement.

P.S. Life may be short, but I find discussions like these to be rather fun as long as they proceed forward and constructively (going around in circles - not so fun).

Ordo Dakka wrote:I can't believe he is arguing against the venn diagram. That is about as simple as he can make it, the model is ON THE TABLE. Even if it is only partially.

EDIT- double psot

The deployment rules give us our basis for what is in play and what is not in play. P92/93.

Since you have to deploy in your half/quarter of the table this disallows you from deploying partially on and partially off the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

No, try that again. You are trying to claim that, because it does NOT state "fully" on, it still actuall means that "by default"?

Sorry, that isnt how English, nor these rules written in English, works.

You are allowed to move partially ON because the rule only requires you to move ON. If you move partially ON you are still, actually, ON the table. Not sure how to explain this any more simply to you.

If you wish to debat e further, please find a page number that defines that "onto" actually means, by default "fully onto". Anything?

if you move partially on, you are on and off the table.

You have to be on the gameboard to play the game, this disallows you from moving partially on the board. See page 88 'The gaming surface'

This gives you the allowed area to play the game, anything outside this surface is not in play.

now please give me your page #'s that over-ride these.

Edited for spelling.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Deathreaper - not entirely sure what you're going on about, but this is "moving on from reserves"

Also you contradict yourself. Being partially on the table is indeed being ON the table -please state how this is not the case. Lignuistically I can prove I am on the table, and Indeed have done so repeatedly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:True - it was just the statement that "you cna be partially on the table, but you arent on the table" being so blindingly self contradicting its amazing.

Perhaps Reaper is subconsciously inserting"fully" in front of "on the table"

the rules state that you have to be on the table. if any part of the base is not on the table then by default you have broken this rule.

Being partially on the table is not "on the table" Since part of your base is not on the table.

you have to ask yourself "is this model on the table" if the answer is yes, then you are within the rules, if the answer is yes and no (in the case of a partial on/off scenario) then you are not within the rules.

Vehicles are different in the fact that they have no base as supplied by GW, so you just have to look at this situation from a blast marker top down point of view. (the whole model must be on the table. If it is not on the table it, by default, must be out of play.)

Wow, really? OK, let's apply this logic to an actual in game situation. Let's talk spearhead.

I take a super-heavy spearhead of a Baneblade. The Baneblade may only move 6" per turn and is about 10-12" long by eyeballing it. The spearhead rules specify that the super-heavy takes an automatic penetrating hit turn one unless the vehicle moves on from reserve. To avoid the initial pen, I elect to bring my super-heavy in from reserve. On turn two it comes in 6" and stops--halfway on the board. . . and by your logic is destroyed.

So, GW let's me avoid a penetrating hit by destroying my own vehicle without ever being able to place it on the board? Wow. You'll ignore this because it's crippling to further discussion, but you'll keep arguing anyway.


So yea, overhang is beyond obviously allowed.

The simple phrase: move ONTO the table.

Not FULLY onto, as you are asserting, but ONTO.

As long as I have moved ONTO, even PARTIALLY ONTO, I have fulfilled the requirements of the rule. As such I have entered play.

In addition I have no idea why you are harking on about deployment; oddly enough this has absolutely 100% nothing to do with moving on from reserves. If you are going down this line, then you are summarily deciding that Outflankers that arrive, say, in their opponents half / quarter are not "on" the table. Which is just hilariously wrong.

DeathReaper wrote:

Ordo Dakka wrote:I can't believe he is arguing against the venn diagram. That is about as simple as he can make it, the model is ON THE TABLE. Even if it is only partially.

EDIT- double psot

The deployment rules give us our basis for what is in play and what is not in play. P92/93.

Since you have to deploy in your half/quarter of the table this disallows you from deploying partially on and partially off the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

No, try that again. You are trying to claim that, because it does NOT state "fully" on, it still actuall means that "by default"?

Sorry, that isnt how English, nor these rules written in English, works.

You are allowed to move partially ON because the rule only requires you to move ON. If you move partially ON you are still, actually, ON the table. Not sure how to explain this any more simply to you.

If you wish to debat e further, please find a page number that defines that "onto" actually means, by default "fully onto". Anything?

if you move partially on, you are on and off the table.

You have to be on the gameboard to play the game, this disallows you from moving partially on the board. See page 88 'The gaming surface'

This gives you the allowed area to play the game, anything outside this surface is not in play.

now please give me your page #'s that over-ride these.

Edited for spelling.

This is the sort of argumentation I dislike. It's not constructive and it's going around in circles. Regardless:

I'll avoid being passive-aggressive about this... which tragically means the TLDR won't happen.

Page 92/93: This page deals with mission selection and secrecy. It does not define what is in play or what is not in play unless you have a clearly pre-defined rule which is not existent on this page. It has a fairly large portion taken up by fluff and diagrams.
Interestingly enough, none of these two pages says anything about that you have to place your models on the gaming board. However, it should be noted that the rules expressly do not cover anything off the table so deploying units is implicit by the rules as being strictly on the table. Deployment is not what we're discussing, though, and as such has absolutely no bearing on the argument.

Partially on = on and off the table: No. Partially on means you are on the table. Being off the table is strictly a situation where you can not be said to be on the table in any shape or form. These are definitions within the English language. You can't be on and off something at the same time, but you can be partially on and partially off.

Page 88: This page deals with how the gaming surface is defined and how terrain is placed on the table. A very crucial page for this discussion, but it does not deal with models at all.

The logical conclusion of page 88: This logical conclusion is erroneous, but it is one I'll admit is easy to make. The definition of being in play is not given by the gaming surface, it is entirely possible that a unit have powers which do work when they are in reserves (i.e. not in play) and such powers actually do exist so it's not a hypothetical argument. A model being in play is simply when you've been given permission to handle it under the rules stated in the BRB. For simplicity's sake I'll simply summarize this as a) being in play is not defined as a concept as far as I've been able to find and b) generally speaking being in play is when you've been allowed to place your model on the table.

Request for over-rides: As I've detailed, the pages cited do not contain rules to support your arguments.

---

I will say this much, however: I'm not entirely sure the game doesn't break in a minor way if you move a model that's not fully on the table. Right now I'm simply too tired to research this.

Mahtamori wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Ordo Dakka wrote:I can't believe he is arguing against the venn diagram. That is about as simple as he can make it, the model is ON THE TABLE. Even if it is only partially.

EDIT- double psot

The deployment rules give us our basis for what is in play and what is not in play. P92/93.

Since you have to deploy in your half/quarter of the table this disallows you from deploying partially on and partially off the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

No, try that again. You are trying to claim that, because it does NOT state "fully" on, it still actuall means that "by default"?

Sorry, that isnt how English, nor these rules written in English, works.

You are allowed to move partially ON because the rule only requires you to move ON. If you move partially ON you are still, actually, ON the table. Not sure how to explain this any more simply to you.

If you wish to debat e further, please find a page number that defines that "onto" actually means, by default "fully onto". Anything?

if you move partially on, you are on and off the table.

You have to be on the gameboard to play the game, this disallows you from moving partially on the board. See page 88 'The gaming surface'

This gives you the allowed area to play the game, anything outside this surface is not in play.

now please give me your page #'s that over-ride these.

Edited for spelling.

This is the sort of argumentation I dislike. It's not constructive and it's going around in circles. Regardless:

I'll avoid being passive-aggressive about this... which tragically means the TLDR won't happen.

Page 92/93: This page deals with mission selection and secrecy. It does not define what is in play or what is not in play unless you have a clearly pre-defined rule which is not existent on this page. It has a fairly large portion taken up by fluff and diagrams.
Interestingly enough, none of these two pages says anything about that you have to place your models on the gaming board. However, it should be noted that the rules expressly do not cover anything off the table so deploying units is implicit by the rules as being strictly on the table. Deployment is not what we're discussing, though, and as such has absolutely no bearing on the argument.

Partially on = on and off the table: No. Partially on means you are on the table. Being off the table is strictly a situation where you can not be said to be on the table in any shape or form. These are definitions within the English language. You can't be on and off something at the same time, but you can be partially on and partially off.

Page 88: This page deals with how the gaming surface is defined and how terrain is placed on the table. A very crucial page for this discussion, but it does not deal with models at all.

The logical conclusion of page 88: This logical conclusion is erroneous, but it is one I'll admit is easy to make. The definition of being in play is not given by the gaming surface, it is entirely possible that a unit have powers which do work when they are in reserves (i.e. not in play) and such powers actually do exist so it's not a hypothetical argument. A model being in play is simply when you've been given permission to handle it under the rules stated in the BRB. For simplicity's sake I'll simply summarize this as a) being in play is not defined as a concept as far as I've been able to find and b) generally speaking being in play is when you've been allowed to place your model on the table.

Request for over-rides: As I've detailed, the pages cited do not contain rules to support your arguments.

---

I will say this much, however: I'm not entirely sure the game doesn't break in a minor way if you move a model that's not fully on the table. Right now I'm simply too tired to research this.

The only problem with your assertion is that on pg 94 arriving from reseve does make a clear distinction between on and off the board. What I believe DeathReaper is trying to convey to everyone is that the game board is limited, therefore the area models can be on the table is also limited. As is defined on page 88. So partially on is not within the playing surface because it is partially off the table. You all seems to be argueing that on is on, and not thinking that off is (interestingly enough also) off.

Also, a lot of you who seem to be arguing against deathreaper have stated that he cannot ask for a page reference from you because he has no rules backing him up. I would like to point out that under that context you cannot ask for one yourselves as that is hypocritical and to explain that your arguement is right because he can't is redundant. Furthermore, he HAS given you a page that is very specific and relevent to this disscussion, and in doing so has also asked you all to provide a page refference from you about your assertions.

Kapitalist-pig seems to be working it out.

I'd like to throw in the point that if you can be forced to move only partially on the table, than you must be able to voluntarily move partially on the table. The reason being is the argument for being alive though you are only partially on the table is because you are in a sense on the table (as shown by the diagram, assuming that partially on is considered on). So, if that is the case, than you may also move your models to only be partially on the table (why you would I have no idea, but there may be some reason).

it is entirely possible that a unit have powers which do work when they are in reserves (i.e. not in play) and such powers actually do exist so it's not a hypothetical argument.

You claim it's not hypothetical but you provide no examples (all you need is 1 really). So if you'd please provide an example (not really doubting you, but I can't seem to recall any at the moment though I'm fairly sure there are some).

Hive commander, almost ALL replacements for combat tactics, Ghazghulls Waaagh, Logans rule, Autarch reserve buff.

Lots.

Yes, you can move voluntarily partially on - see baneblades arriving from reserve, example given earlier. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be fully on the table after moving on. Land raiders, if you want to be able to fire both lascannons are the same target ahead of you.

KP - arriving from reserve simply requires "onto", not "fully", thus we have had our page ref for 6 pages now. Noone has been able to find anywhere that this "defaults" to "fully" onto, despite Deathreapers assertion on this.

There are a few oddities which can stop a vehicle before it has completed it's move, like death or glory or a ramming move which doesn't wreck/destroy it's target, but difficult terrain isn't one of them:

Page 57, heading 'Terrain effects', second paragraph:
"vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain, they treat difficult as dangerous. Roll a D6 for each vehicle which has left, entered or moved thru one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move"

nosferaty1001 wrote:Yes, you can move voluntarily partially on - see baneblades arriving from reserve, example given earlier. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be fully on the table after moving on. Land raiders, if you want to be able to fire both lascannons are the same target ahead of you.

Technically, if a vehicle is unable to move full on to the table because its maximum movement speed is less than its length, it is not voluntary movement, so this cannot be taken to give permission for voluntary half-on movement.

Conversely, I think it would be possible to move a Land Raider fully on to the table by going at full speed, or by pivoting sideways at the end of the entry move. Clearly this would prevent it from shooting at full effect, however that is just the normal rules in action.

That said, there is no rule compelling vehicles arriving from reserve to move fully on to the table, so equally, we can't say players have to move their Land Raider as I described.

I don't think it matters if a vehicle is partly on the table. Vehicles are not subject to the edge suction effect that infantry suffer during Falling Back. If the front of the vehicle is on the table, it can be seen and shot at, which is important from a practical viewpoint.

This does not solve the original problem, though. The rule is quite clear -- the vehicle stops outside the terrain it was attempting to enter.

Thus, if the difficult terrain extends to the edge of the table, the tank is off the table.

From a practical viewpoint, what terrain is the vehicle in, outside the table? If it is to be allowed to take part in the battle from off the table, then units on the table will wish to shoot at it, and they need to be able to see its cover status so they can manoeuvre for maximum advantage.

Infantry may wish to assault it. Why should the tank be allowed to shoot at the infantry, but the infantry not be allowed to assault the tank?

On balance it seems fairer and more practical that a vehicle, which fails to arrive from reserves, should be eliminated from the game as if it had been destroyed in a Deep Strike calamity.

Page 57, heading 'Terrain effects', second paragraph:
"vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain, they treat difficult as dangerous. Roll a D6 for each vehicle which has left, entered or moved thru one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move"

There you go (I was the opponent btw... ).

If you enter terrain, you have to make the dangerous terrain test immediately. If you are not completely on the board when you enter terrain and get immobilized we have the problem.

Normally of course I avoid this, but this time I had no choice, I wanted firepower there. It was unimportant for the game, we tied safely, but this could have been an interesting tiebreaker in my favour. OK my point on this question is:

This situation is just not covered by the rules. You cannot be partially off the board simply because off the board is impassable terrain and "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

The line referring to special rules does not apply here too, because a dangerous terrain test is not a special rule.

so we have a simple error. You cannot destroy the vehicle, because there is no reason in the rules for it. You cannot place it partially off the board either, because this is not permitted. So we have to houserule this.

But this thing leads me to the next question:

What happens if a reserve edge is blocked and a unit should arrive there? Last game I decided not to close a flank because I wasnt sure how to solve this. Here in germany we houserule this (mostly the unit stays in reserve and tries coming each turn again and if it didnt appear until the end of the game it is destroyed). But I wonder how you guys work this out.

Kilkrazy wrote:Conversely, I think it would be possible to move a Land Raider fully on to the table by going at full speed, or by pivoting sideways at the end of the entry move. Clearly this would prevent it from shooting at full effect, however that is just the normal rules in action.

Er if the land raider pivots it will be flush to the board edge ... So now you have a land raider that can only dive down the side of the board. After all you can not move off the table and pivoting would move the LR off.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hive commander, almost ALL replacements for combat tactics, Ghazghulls Waaagh, Logans rule, Autarch reserve buff.

Lots.

Yes, you can move voluntarily partially on - see baneblades arriving from reserve, example given earlier. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be fully on the table after moving on. Land raiders, if you want to be able to fire both lascannons are the same target ahead of you.

KP - arriving from reserve simply requires "onto", not "fully", thus we have had our page ref for 6 pages now. Noone has been able to find anywhere that this "defaults" to "fully" onto, despite Deathreapers assertion on this.

See below. bold underlined says it all below.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Page 57, heading 'Terrain effects', second paragraph:
"vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain, they treat difficult as dangerous. Roll a D6 for each vehicle which has left, entered or moved thru one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move"

There you go (I was the opponent btw... ).

If you enter terrain, you have to make the dangerous terrain test immediately. If you are not completely on the board when you enter terrain and get immobilized we have the problem.

... OK my point on this question is:

This situation is just not covered by the rules. You cannot be partially off the board simply because off the board is impassable terrain and "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

The line referring to special rules does not apply here too, because a dangerous terrain test is not a special rule.

so we have a simple error. You cannot destroy the vehicle, because there is no reason in the rules for it. You cannot place it partially off the board either, because this is not permitted. So we have to houserule this.

But this thing leads me to the next question:

What happens if a reserve edge is blocked and a unit should arrive there? Last game I decided not to close a flank because I wasnt sure how to solve this. Here in germany we houserule this (mostly the unit stays in reserve and tries coming each turn again and if it didnt appear until the end of the game it is destroyed). But I wonder how you guys work this out.

Not sure how i would play that scenario naz, maybe keeping them in reserve and rolling again next turn is a good option.

Off the edge of the baord is not impassible terrain, otherwise reserves could never come on. They are placed with their front edge at the edge of the board, and then move. If you try to do this you are placing a model in impassable terrain which you do not have permission to do so.

So you're still not right on this.

Tri - nothing states a LR (or any vehicle) cant simply move sideways. This permission is derived from infantry permission to do so, which is never overridden by the vehicle movement rules.

-nazdreg - the rules DO cover this situation: if you can get even 0.000001" onto the table, you are on the table and have satisfied the rules for arriving from reserves. As has been said for 6 pages now, and which D Reaper seems unable to grasp.

I am more and more beginning to think that the line on page 94 "if a unit has a special rule forcing <snip> or that could stop it" should be read in a very broader sense than strictly special rules, but to encompass immobilization results as well.

Kilkrazy, strictly speaking, a vehicle which has arrived from reinforcements is literally touching the board edge so close that the board edge can, at certain points, be treated as the vehicle's hull. Additionally, the rules do not give permission for defining terrain off the gaming surface so the best terrain can cover is in contact with the board edge.
The reasoning with melee is a sound one, however I do not think it actually changes the rules but more so changes how to treat a situation like this practically.

Nostromo, a vehicle which is immobilized as part of it's movement through dangerous terrain is placed in hull-to-start-of-terrain contact.

Kapitalist-pig, it makes a clear distinction between on and off in relation to the board, yet it makes no distinction between partially on or off. Furthermore, page 94, arriving from reserve, states that you may not place your model until you have finished your move as this may otherwise lead to making a move too far, and this is where the distinction between on and off occurs.

A house-rule suggestion (let's call it a "sane-rule"): A model must have fully moved onto the table before effects of difficult or dangerous terrain are applied to the model. Should the model be unable to move fully onto the table as a result of a normal, unhindered, movement, the model is moved the minimum amount of distance extra necessary to get the model fully onto the table. Should a model or unit be unable to enter from reserves due to restrictions from impassable terrain or enemy units, the model or unit is returned to reserves.
If you want to further avoid silly situations where conga-lines of infiltrators prevent a player from entering from reserves, you could add
On a turn following when a unit or model were unable to enter from reserves, the unit or model may arrive through outflanking.
(Although I'm personally of the opinion that a commander that kept his entire force in reserve deserve serious punishment for epic tactical failure)

Edit: Now, could we come to the agreement that the situation where a model is immobilized due to difficult terrain touching the table edge is not covered by the rules and simply add this situation to that pile?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tri - nothing states a LR (or any vehicle) cant simply move sideways. This permission is derived from infantry permission to do so, which is never overridden by the vehicle movement rules.

... on the one hand i agree ... on the other we have sideways moving battle wagons (and all though you can't prove intent they have mentioned forward and backward movement which leads me to the view they can only move forward and backwards)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Off the edge of the baord is not impassible terrain, otherwise reserves could never come on. They are placed with their front edge at the edge of the board, and then move. If you try to do this you are placing a model in impassable terrain which you do not have permission to do so.

So you're still not right on this.

Tri - nothing states a LR (or any vehicle) cant simply move sideways. This permission is derived from infantry permission to do so, which is never overridden by the vehicle movement rules.

-nazdreg - the rules DO cover this situation: if you can get even 0.000001" onto the table, you are on the table and have satisfied the rules for arriving from reserves. As has been said for 6 pages now, and which D Reaper seems unable to grasp.

we can not play outside the game surface, there is a boundary there for a reason. (like most any competitive game/sport)

You are not right on this. the vehicle you mentioned is on the table, AND off the table. Like schrodinger's cat.

Off the board is "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

bottom line for the OP is that if a vehicle is immobilized off the board it is out of play.

You know what's a fun wrench to throw into this mix; squadroned tanks.

If one is partially off, the whole squad of tanks disappear.

DeathReaper wrote:Off the board is "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

That was the FAQ regarding moving off of the board, actually. Otherwise, reserves/embarked/etc. = destroyed.
The rules still do not cover it, and the ruler is still on the table.

Hive commander, almost ALL replacements for combat tactics, Ghazghulls Waaagh, Logans rule, Autarch reserve buff.

Actually that is entirely incorrect and counter to your own point that models off the table are considered in play:

Ghazkull's Waaagh works because you bought Ghazkull (same with chapter tactics). Just as easily (and to the same effect) the codex could say that you can buy an upgraded Waaagh that gives you the same effect for x points, and then drop Ghazkull by x points. Then add a rule for Ghazkull that says you must buy the upgraded Waaagh. The waagh upgrade and chapter tactics are army wide upgrades that are unrelated to the unit other than you must purchase the unit to get the army wide ability.

Logan's rule doesn't take effect while off the table. You get to choose a special rule while off the table, but so long as you are off the table it has no effect. However this was one of the better examples and I can see it supporting your point.

Hive commander I believe was argued to no end as to whether or not it worked while off the table. While I personally would allow it to work off the table, the Autarch entry makes me see why people would argue the other way.

Autarch: This is the guy who is completely contradictory to your point. You claim that models can be 'in play' while off the table because they have a rule that takes effect. However the Autarch master strategist explicitly points out that it is usable "regardless of whether he is in play or no." Since it also explicitly says that it works while the Autarch is alive this would be a pointless line if 'alive' covered being out of play (which I agree it should, hence the Hive Commander allowance, but RAW here). However, since the codex takes the effort to explain that it works while he is 'out of play' (ie, in reserves), that must mean that being in reserves you are out of play (being in reserves equivalent to not being on the table since you can't be in play and not on the gaming surface). Therefore being 'in play' is given by the gaming surface.

Also let's take the idea of partially in and partially out. Does that mean that, so long as .0000001" of a model is inside my table quarter in a spearhead deployment I'm legally in my deployment zone? Though, yes, this is not for reserves, it is following the notion that being partially within your boundaries is being within. This is also applicable to dawn of war which says you deploy 'in [your] half of the table' which doesn't say that it must be fully in your half, and again following your logic I can deploy with .000001" in my side of the table and still satisfy the rule for being 'in my half' similar to moving on the table .000001" and being 'on' the table. I'm fairly certain that that was Kapitalist-pigs point, hence pages 92/93 (though it doesn't work with pitched battle deployment which requires you to be more than 12" from the center).

Also I agree with Tri in following the point that vehicles can only move forward and backwards (as slightly touched on on page 57). It doesn't reference any sideways vehicle movement, only forwards and reverse.

Anyway, again as people have claimed there is no real rule for dealing with this (nos you are assuming that partly on the table qualifies for 'on the table' while ignore the possiblity, which I view more likely, that being partially off the table for any reason equates to 'off the table.' An example would be for deepstriking. On page 95 it references 'if any of the models cannot be deployed because they would land off the table' they have to deal with the mishap table. By your definition this would only occur if the model was fully off the table since if they were .0000001" on the table, they would be 'on the table' because Deepstrike also does not point out whether being fully on the table is a requirement). However I would lean towards units must be fully on the table. Those which cannot move fully on the table are destroyed. Counter arguments are for the Baneblade and the Monolith. However the monolith can safely deepstrike, and so doesn't have a problem entering reserves. As for the baneblade, can we please stay in regular 40k as apocalypse (and its variants) tend to have rules issues.



Edit:

If one is partially off, the whole squad of tanks disappear.

Actually the debate is about being immobilized due to impassable terrain. Since it's a squadron, immobilized results count as destroyed, and so now you just have a smaller squadron of tanks coming on. Not really a wrench at all. It's actually easier to deal with.

Ail-Shan wrote:Autarch: This is the guy who is completely contradictory to your point. You claim that models can be 'in play' while off the table because they have a rule that takes effect. However the Autarch master strategist explicitly points out that it is usable "regardless of whether he is in play or no." Since it also explicitly says that it works while the Autarch is alive this would be a pointless line if 'alive' covered being out of play (which I agree it should, hence the Hive Commander allowance, but RAW here). However, since the codex takes the effort to explain that it works while he is 'out of play' (ie, in reserves), that must mean that being in reserves you are out of play (being in reserves equivalent to not being on the table since you can't be in play and not on the gaming surface). Therefore being 'in play' is given by the gaming surface.

This is actually the entire point. It's a rule that work even if you aren't in play, being in play means you've either deployed the unit, had it arrive from deep strike, or had it arrive from reserves - unless your codex has a different set of rules to enter a model in play. The rules do not explicitly state, at any point, that a model is destroyed if not fully on the table - this is a requirement since the rules are permissive and arriving from reserves has already given permission for a model to be placed.

In the above quoted text you are making the fatal assumption that not being fully on the table means not in play. The rules never state this. You are also vastly confusing concepts, "being in play" is not equivalent of "being on the gaming surface". Let's ignore that you're using a fourth edition codex (and also the codex with fewest unique special rules) to clarify a core rule for fifth edition.

Now, I'd like you to give a reference to where it says a model is not in play unless it is on the gaming surface. That would terminate this debate.

P.S. in a half of a table is vastly different from on a half of the table. By nos' logic being inside a boundary (which being inside a deployment zone is), you need to have each model or vehicle hull fully inside the deployment zone. You've replaced "on" with something entirely different.

P.P.S. Regarding vehicles: that's for a different YMDC, and one we've already had. Vehicle movement is never defined as forward or backward (that's pivoting defined as forward or backward momentum) only ramming has a vehicle moving forward. End of that discussion here.

Mahtamori wrote:

Ail-Shan wrote:Autarch: This is the guy who is completely contradictory to your point. You claim that models can be 'in play' while off the table because they have a rule that takes effect. However the Autarch master strategist explicitly points out that it is usable "regardless of whether he is in play or no." Since it also explicitly says that it works while the Autarch is alive this would be a pointless line if 'alive' covered being out of play (which I agree it should, hence the Hive Commander allowance, but RAW here). However, since the codex takes the effort to explain that it works while he is 'out of play' (ie, in reserves), that must mean that being in reserves you are out of play (being in reserves equivalent to not being on the table since you can't be in play and not on the gaming surface). Therefore being 'in play' is given by the gaming surface.

This is actually the entire point. It's a rule that work even if you aren't in play, being in play means you've either deployed the unit, had it arrive from deep strike, or had it arrive from reserves - unless your codex has a different set of rules to enter a model in play. The rules do not explicitly state, at any point, that a model is destroyed if not fully on the table - this is a requirement since the rules are permissive and arriving from reserves has already given permission for a model to be placed.

In the above quoted text you are making the fatal assumption that not being fully on the table means not in play. The rules never state this. You are also vastly confusing concepts, "being in play" is not equivalent of "being on the gaming surface". Let's ignore that you're using a fourth edition codex (and also the codex with fewest unique special rules) to clarify a core rule for fifth edition.
.

The reserve buff rule specifically states when it is used, so it allows you to use this while off the game surface.

you can not use most psyker powers while in reserve/off the table.

P88 has the gaming surface, it shows a clear boundary for models in play, if you are not within this surface you can not be considered in play (though you may have a special rule that overrides this)

For the deployment error - you are in error here because, although you can be measured to be within your deployment zone, I can measure to show you are outside of your deployment zone. The CONDITION of deployment is that you deploy within your zone; if i can show you are not within your zone, you have not deployed legally.

Reserves is different, as it plays a single condition: move onto. AS long as you HAVE moved onto, you have satisfied the condition. This is why you are argument fails Deathreaper. And always will until and unless they change their rules on this.

Logans High Kind rule is AT THE START of the turn you pick a power; if you drop pod / deepstrike in you do this *after* picking a power, which you areexplicitly allowed to do.

MOdel not on the table, power still worked, case proven.

I;m done arguing tjhis. The previous thread had ALL of these arguments and the not in play side were proven wrong time and time again, until the thread was locked because they kept ignoring the arguments proving them wrong. AS such unles something new can be added (and it wont be) a tank that moves PARTIALLY onto the board HAS satisfied the reserves rule, IS in play and that is the final conclusive answer.
I had already stated that, in the case where you are flush to the board edge this doesnt seem to exist within the rules - and the easiest answert was: dont have terrain placement that allows this. For a start the only practical way to do this would be to have terrain hanging off the edge of the board, which doesnt exactly work that well....

Reserves is different, as it plays a single condition: move onto. AS long as you HAVE moved onto, you have satisfied the condition

And while you prove you moved onto the table, I will prove that you didn't move onto the table, using the part of your model that is not on the table (the same as you would do for the above deployment). You are using a double standard. Also this doesn't answer the problem encountered with deepstrike when a model is partially off the table.

Also you must admit that both for The High King and for Master Strategist, the rules (or FAQ in THK's case) state that they may be used. This being the case, it is implied that normally it is ortherwise (such as with Eldar farseers and other abilities that are used at the beginning of the turn). So again, being off the table implies being out of play where you can take no action unless otherwise stated (such as with The High King or master strategist which say that they can be used while out of play).

Following this and your own argument against deployment, if I can show that you are not on the table, than you are not in play.

I;m done arguing tjhis. The previous thread had ALL of these arguments and the not in play side were proven wrong time and time again

Fair enough, this thread is long (though I enjoyed reading it). However, if I could make one last request, could you please summarize your arguments into one post just for ease of reading/understanding? I'd rather not read through all 6 pages again.

Now, I'd like you to give a reference to where it says a model is not in play unless it is on the gaming surface.

And we'll bring back up the idea of seeker missiles coming in from off the table. In addition MotO could also fire off the table since they don't need range or los. If you'd like to argue that these models, despite not being on the table can still be used, you'll likely get some interesting looks. Again the only time that abilities work while you are off the table is when the special rule specifically says so (such as with Master Strategist and the FAQ for THK). Otherwise models which are off the table have no effect on the game (where the model is required for the effect. Army changing effects such as chapter tactics obviously still take effect since they are caused by what the list includes).

P.S. in a half of a table is vastly different from on a half of the table.

True. By definition we can no longer deploy since there is no depth description for the deployment zone. Since you cannot be 'in' a flat area no model can legally be deployed. They are taken to mean the same thing or else you end up with the above (admittedly absurd) argument.

Except you have two different conditions: you cannot conflate the two situations as being the same, as they are not.

One requires you deploy within. One requires you move on. Two entirely different conditions. Yes, you can show I am also partially off the table, but that isnt a problem, as the rule only requires I'm on the table. Deployment requires that I am within an area, so if I am not I have broken that rule.

Additionally: evidence of redundancy is not evidence of necessity. SM Bikes repeat that ID does not care about the +1T from the bike, despite this being clearly explained in the rules for ID. Thus it is a redundant rule, but by your standard it would be a necessary one.

Ail-Shan wrote:And while you prove you moved onto the table, I will prove that you didn't move onto the table, using the part of your model that is not on the table

No, you will prove the model was not entirely moved onto the table.

Just as when you move your landraider one can pick a point on its hull--say its roof--and declare that it is not entirely on the table.


Prove to me the ruler is not on the table.

@Kirsanth: Yes you were right that was a bad comment on my part, and was better used in the second case.

@nos: I am not required to deploy within, only in. So long as part of the model is in the deployment zone, by your own argument, I am in the deployment zone. Yes I am also out of the deployment zone, but nowhere in the rule for deployment does it say I cannot deploy outside my zone at all. Therefore, being partially in the deployment zone, I am still in the deployment zone and legally deployed.

And again, if you can say I'm illegally deployed because I'm partially outside of my deployment zone, you are not in play because you are partially off the table.

SM Bikes repeat that ID does not care about the +1T from the bike

Can you give me a page number as I can't seem to find that? Being so it still seems that models off the table are out of play since in order to use any ability off the table it must be explicitly said in the codex or FAQ in the Wolves' case.

Its in the rulebook now - it used to be in the codex. See the rules for bikes. Anyways, as was stated - what you see as necessity can equally be redundancy; unless you can find a rule stating off table == not in play, cannot do anything whatsoever at all, then they are not [not in play....at all]

You are required to deploy "in his half" (etc); not at all the same condition as being required to be "on" the table. Not sure how else to explain that two conditions arent the same, so you cant conflate an argument in that way....hell, the two words are entirely different, for a start!

"in his half"

"within his half" would have been better but hey it GW they don't even write how to deploy units any more.

Tri wrote:

"in his half"

"within his half" would have been better but hay it GW they don't even right how to deploy units any more.

"Write".

Do GW have to tell you what the letter "a" means too?

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

"in his half"

"within his half" would have been better but hey it GW they don't even wright how to deploy units any more.

"Write".

Do GW have to tell you what the letter "a" means too?

Yep but then you're not paying me for rules ... and a dyslexic sod like me would make damn sure someone reread anything I did plan on publishing.

So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

Slackermagee wrote:So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

Half on not half off.
We were asked to move them on to the table as if moving on from just off the board ... since there is no written penalty for being unable to get all the way on we must assume that GW wanted it that way.

Slackermagee wrote:So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

The rule saying you only need to be on. Not "fully" on, but just on. Partially on fully, 100% and in every way imaginable satisfies that SINGLE requirement.

Its in the rulebook now - it used to be in the codex. See the rules for bikes.

Then that's relevant. Your original reason for bringing that up was to argue my point that since Master Strategist explicitly says "even when he is not in play" and the SW FAQ says that THK works while in reserves does not necessarily mean that units off the table are considered out of play. However, since these rules are explained as such, and you cannot find an example of a redundant ruling (the reason you brought up bikes counting the lower toughness for ID being mentioned in both the BRB and the codex, a point which is false), it is than implied that models which are off the board are not in play. You haven't provided a counter to that point other than "the rules say they aren't not in play directly."

unless you can find a rule stating off table == not in play

And again, the rules also don't say that you cannot fire a master of the ordnance while off the table. Similarly an Eldar farseer cannot (as far as I've read or seen played) fortune or guide their own unit, despite being forced to be within range to do so even while off the table. If you do not allow a farseer to do so, you are being inconsistent by saying that units off the table are not [not in play...at all] yet not letting them use their abilities. There is no rule restricting the use of psychic powers to 'on the table.' As a side note, based on the points that I have made about models being off the table being 'not in play,' it would seem that Runes of Warding would not be in effect while the farseer was off the table as well (never had that happen).

However, for the most part I think I'll leave it here as I do see your guys' points (thanks to Tri's last post. Thank you for summing up instead of sarcastically replying). I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Of course as one last point, mind you that WMS only takes effect when terrain causes the problem. So, RAW at least, you still must be able to balance your model on the edge of the table (much like that ruler....crazy ruler).

Tri wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

Half on not half off.
We were asked to move them on to the table as if moving on from just off the board ... since there is no written penalty for being unable to get all the way on we must assume that GW wanted it that way.

ROFL Half on IS Half off...

I can not believe i just had to type that.

Ali - no, you misunderstand. The rule for Bikes in the BRB talks about the extra toughness not affecting ID. Example of a redundant rule.

But the point still stands: You are stating that a lack of a rule implies requirement, whereas it could simply be a lack of redundancy. Without that proof your argument on requiring falls flat.

In addition you CAN deny Farseers their powers: measure their range in order to use any of the powers. You cannot do so, so the power fails. Still consistent.

MotO still requires you to measure range. You cannot do so while off the table. You also cannot prove that he didnt move during that turn, so are again denied firing. All of which doesnt alter that Logans rule does work, and worked before the FAQ.

Deathreaper - sorry, that isnt an argument. Find a requirement to not be half off, and you may have a point. You dont.

DeathReaper wrote:

Tri wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

Half on not half off.
We were asked to move them on to the table as if moving on from just off the board ... since there is no written penalty for being unable to get all the way on we must assume that GW wanted it that way.

ROFL Half on IS Half off...

I can not believe i just had to type that.

No the game cares not a fig if you're half off. It does however want you to be on the board and since half on is on ... well we've covered that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

The rule saying you only need to be on. Not "fully" on, but just on. Partially on fully, 100% and in every way imaginable satisfies that SINGLE requirement.

Well, there you go. The rule says that you need to be on, not that you can be on. If it had not made a necessity out of it and gave you an out through a permissive wording (such as 'can'), I'd buy that models could be half off the table.

Does the back half of a landraider need to be on the table less than the front half of the landraider?

Ali - no, you misunderstand. The rule for Bikes in the BRB talks about the extra toughness not affecting ID. Example of a redundant rule.

The problem I have with that is that it is not a redundant rule. It is mentioned once in the BRB and nowhere else, hence is just a rule.

measure their range in order to use any of the powers.

Try to argue that my farseer is more than 6" from herself and watch the universe implode

Seriously though I can understand the not measuring bit (hence not being able to cast on other units), but trying to say that you're out of range of yourself is a bit off. Also what about the librarian power that just says 'he and his unit get a 5+ invuln'? Is that allowed while off the table?

As for the MotO, the point about 'prove he didn't move' is good. However, he doesn't require range.

Now to prevent any hassle and pointing out I made a mistake I'll point it out myself.

While, yes, WMS does state that it works only for terrain, it can be argued (rather decisively) that the table is clear terrain, and therefore terrain, and so WMS is in effect.

Well, there you go. The rule says that you need to be on, not that you can be on.

The point is though that, taking the model as a whole, it technically is on the table if part of it is on the table, thus satisfying the requirements of reserves. I have a problem with this in that it means you can voluntarily move partially onto the table from reserves (for what purpose I have no idea, other than gaining another 4" of firing line), but it does make sense, but whether or not I have a problem with the rule has no bearing on whether or not that is how it is played.

That isn't what the rule says though. By your logic the top half of the Land Raider is not on the table either.

I wouldn't say that. More to the point is that the model is always considered as a whole (you can't blow up the front half of a land raider).

Slackermagee wrote:Does the back half of a landraider need to be on the table less than the front half of the landraider?

That isn't what the rule says though. By your logic the top half of the Land Raider is not on the table either.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Does the back half of a landraider need to be on the table less than the front half of the landraider?

That isn't what the rule says though. By your logic the top half of the Land Raider is not on the table either.

Well, if 'needs' doesn't mandate that the model be on the table then what does it mandate? Are we entertaining the idea that an absent word trumps a present word?

And Gwar, why reduce it to the absurd? Front half = 3". Whatever, either way, same point. The landraider doesn't need to be 3" onto the table, the landraider needs to be on the table. If a part of the landraider isn't on table, it isn't satisfying the 'needs' part.

but you can bring on a land raider if you turn it side on can't you?

I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

This debate is moving to the absurd.

And now, 7 pages later, no one has managed to spot any rules in the rule book stating what happens to a model that's not fully on the table. It's really that simple. Since the rules tell you how to move, if such a move fails there must be a consequence. If the rules do not provide a consequence, all this jabbering means nothing since you'd be debating RAI or RAP (in other words, take it to a different section of the forums).
What happens to a model that's not fully on the table? State the page in the BRB where it says that.

Me, I claim no such page exist.

P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

Mahtamori wrote:P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

Well if you're making up rule wouldn't it be fairer to do what happens when something goes wrong when you DS. Would have solved a lot of problems if it was the Reserves mishap table ... roll on the table if you're unit cannot be placed due to impassible terrain, being immobilized off the table (these units will DS in later ^_^), the board edge being blocked or DSing off the table.

Slackermagee wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

Mahtamori wrote:

P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

That's the OP for you.

Note: he hasn't posted in pages or backed up his argument.

Che-Vito wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:

P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

That's the OP for you.

Note: he hasn't posted in pages or backed up his argument.

being fair his last post was Friday... he may have better things to do with his weekend ^_^

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Thankfully, the ruleset is nuanced enough that a random motivational poster can't be shoehorned into a RAW discussion successfully. Mainly because the ruler doesn't have a clause 'needing' it to be on the table and is lacking rules permtting it to be off of the table.





Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whoops, iTouch fluffed that last post.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

No it is not on the table. (I can clearly point to a large portion of the ruler that is not on the table)
and
Yes it is on the table. (I can also clearly point to a small portion of the ruler that is on the table)

at the same time. It exists in both spaces.

that is not a simple yes or no question.

The game surface has a clearly defined edge.(P.88) it also says that standard missions are designed to be played on a 6' by 4'gaming surface.

and since you have to follow this rule, no part of the base can be off the gaming surface.

And, like many other competitive games/sports, you have to stay within the playing surface otherwise you are out of bounds.

DeathReaper wrote:
And, like many other competitive games/sports, you have to stay within the playing surface otherwise you are out of bounds.

Logical fallacy, many sports exist where, not only is <100% (of the ball) allowed to be 'outside the field of play' but in which the whole body of the player is allowed outside the field.

And to mention, you still have not adressed how half on the table is not on the table. (Hint being half off the table means one's on the table (rofl I can't belive I just had to type that))

DeathReaper wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

No it is not on the table. (I can clearly point to a large portion of the ruler that is not on the table)
and
Yes it is on the table. (I can also clearly point to a small portion of the ruler that is on the table)

that is not a simple yes or no question.

Yes, it is a simple yes or no question.
It's partially on the table. That means it's on the table.
It also means that it's partially off the table and not fully on the table, but neither of those have any bearing on the question or the rule requirements. It's on the table.

If a tank can be partially off the table when entering from reserve because it was immobilized by DT, and this is a legal status, can I choose to drive all of my tanks from reserve partially onto the board, thus removing the ability for anyone to shoot at my rear or side armor?

Ah, so you're trying to voluntarily place a model off the board, well find a rule saying you can do that then sure

Ali-shan. Sigh. PLease, look it up.

THe Bike rule (NOT THE ID RULE) states that the extra toughness is ignored for ID. The ID rules, on different pages, state that modified toughness is ignroed for ID.

Mentioned in 2 places, the Bike entry is entirely redundant, done.

While the MotO does not need range, he is NOT exempt from step 2: check range and LOS. While you have "unlimited"range you still have to be able to measure to it. Whuile your farseer is off the table youc annot measure to either the farseer or their unit (and you CANNOT prove they are in the same unit, as you cannot measure to them) - see, all denied by the simple inability to measure to the object. Worth thinking your examples through a little more next time

Slackermages - prove there is a line stating "FULLY", or any variation thereof, and you may have a point. Oh wait, after 7 pages of asking for this exact same thing noone has been able to find it.

Guess what; it deosnt exist. A requirement to be on the table is fully satisfied by being partially on. Slackermage, over to you - please find something to refute that, linguistically, venn diagramattically, whatever - just something. Otherwise your current claim that the top of the LR is not on the table (logical conclusion to your "argument") will have to go down in dakka history...

Nos; I'm pretty sure Slackermage is taking the redutio ad absurdum (Spelling anyone seriously?) approach to hose down the 'half a base isn't in the table' argument.

Not sure he is, but anyway....

Fair enough, you win the redundancy argument. And good pointwith the MotO. However, I again ask you to prove that my farseer is more than 6" from himself. In addition there is no rule in neither the Eldar codex nor the BRB that talks about measuring range for psychic powers (other than that using a psychic shooting attack is counted as firing a ranged weapon, and so follows the same rules other than when stated otherwise).

Also since you declare reserves before the game starts and where the IC is, it seems hard to say that they are not a unit, though arguable yes (saying they don't come together until right before arriving from reserves).

And yes, the ruler is on the table.

Measure to your farseer. You cant, therefore you cannot prove he is within 6" of himself.

Faintly rediculous, yes. Still valid. Also all the eldar powers have a range - in order to measure this range you have to, well, be able to actually measure it. Which you cannot do while off the table.

I cannot believe I am gonna have to type this but here we go. If the playing surface is defined, and you have something that is off the playing surface for any reason (other then allowed by a rule, Reserves, and what not) is breaking the rules about the playing surface. Please point to a reference about how having any part of the model in the rules stating that a model may be partially on the table and partially off is allowed. If I can quote your for a "permissive rules".

Now then, any sod can glue a ruler to a table and throw a hammer onto it to prove a point. That is niether here nor there for this arguement as it is a red haring. You are distracting people from the real arguement with that and I find it absurd that everyone is asking if it is on the table or off and demanding a simple yes or no anwser.

I find it absurd that someone would claim the rules back calling a unit destroyed without being able to point to a rule backing that point of view.

KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

The precedent set is that nothing that is off the table can interact with the anything on it until it comes onto the table unless otherwise specified. Using this precedent, if the vehicle isn't on the table it cannot interact with anything that is until it is also on the table since the dangerous terrain rules don't specify that it can affect units off the board. For the vehicle to be immobilized by the terrain it has to be placed on the board. Once it has moved up far enough to be placed on the table it can now interact with the terrain, which will cause it to be immobilized. Since the rulebook doesn't cover this situation, this is what I feel is the most playable solution while adhering to the rules as much as possible. Having things hang off the board is not an acceptable solution as some people play on tables that are only 4' by 6' and no where to "hang" models off the board. Counting the vehicle as destroyed has less basis in the rules because no where in the rules is it supported. While the vehicle should be immobilized as soon as it reaches the terrain piece, but how can the model reach the terrain piece if it is not on the table?

Oh and by the way that ruler isn't glued to the table. I had a statics class in which the professor did nearly the exact same thing as a demonstration of moments of force. It really does work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

P.88 Says that standard missions are designed to be played on a 6' by 4'gaming surface.

on means on, where does it say you can be off the table?

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:The precedent set is that nothing that is off the table can interact with the anything on it until it comes onto the table unless otherwise specified. Using this precedent, if the vehicle isn't on the table it cannot interact with anything that is until it is also on the table since the dangerous terrain rules don't specify that it can affect units off the board. For the vehicle to be immobilized by the terrain it has to be placed on the board. Once it has moved up far enough to be placed on the table it can now interact with the terrain, which will cause it to be immobilized. Since the rulebook doesn't cover this situation, this is what I feel is the most playable solution while adhering to the rules as much as possible. Having things hang off the board is not an acceptable solution as some people play on tables that are only 4' by 6' and no where to "hang" models off the board. Counting the vehicle as destroyed has less basis in the rules because no where in the rules is it supported. While the vehicle should be immobilized as soon as it reaches the terrain piece, but how can the model reach the terrain piece if it is not on the table?

Oh and by the way that ruler isn't glued to the table. I had a statics class in which the professor did nearly the exact same thing as a demonstration of moments of force. It really does work.

I like the underlined above, seems the fair way to play it.

I am still waiting for the page number for the rules telling you that the unit should be destroyed.

For those saying it should be destroyed--I say you are correct but only if it is your own unit.

My opponent's units will be allowed to move onto the table--as there is no rule saying to destroy them for not ALSO being entirely on the table.

If my own models ever manage to do this (it is almost impossible), without having discussed this prior to the game, I would allow my opponent to rule them be destroyed--despite there being no rule allowing it. I tend to bring up a list of items with people I have not played before.

tl/dr=play the weaker version for yourself, or play right. The best do both.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

Just my two cents (I remain steadfastly neutral here!)

Consider the rules in the book for passengers disembarking for a destroyed vehicle (i,e, an emergency disembark). The rules say that models that cannot possibly fit on to the board due to constraints (i.e. space, enemy models, dangerous/impassible terrain) are destroyed. In terms of "having space on the table", wouldn't the vehicle suffer similar penalties?

Kilkrazy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

You must move "onto", with no qualifications to this. Partially onto satisfies this requirement.

Kilkrazy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

The rule that says you must move on the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

The rule that says you must move on the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Yes but where in that statment is it giving you permission to move it on partially?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Yes but where in that statment is it giving you permission to move it on partially?

Nowhere, because it doesn't need to.

Partially ON is still ON.

Again, yes or no, is the ruler on the table? Yes, it is.

So, can I assume that you think any model that isn't 2D is auto destroyed when deployed? Since the top half is not fully on the table either!

It does not need to, as "partially on" is still "on".

"Did you set that man on fire?"
"No, I set him partially on fire."
"So you admit to setting him on fire?"
"No. Didn't you listen? I set him PARTIALLY on fire!"
"Guilty."

Nice.

Gwar! wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Yes but where in that statment is it giving you permission to move it on partially?

Nowhere, because it doesn't need to.

Partially ON is still ON.

Again, yes or no, is the ruler on the table? Yes, it is.

So, can I assume that you think any model that isn't 2D is auto destroyed when deployed? Since the top half is not fully on the table either!

No you guys are ignoring another rule and how your moving partially on is breaking it. Simply put this question has more then one side to it, and is effected by multiple things. You are saying that moving it partially onto the board makes it legal. Problem is there is a defined playing surface. Period, you cannot refute this. So placing, moving, and postioning your models in any way that circumvents the playing area rule is not allowed. (unless it has a specail rule allowing it)

Addtionally, I see you guys consistently saying the rules have to give permission to do something. In this problem you are infering that partially on fulfills the requirement. You are qualifying your anwser with no real back up. You need to show me, and everyone else, where on means partially on. Don't give me that it fulfills it therefore you do not need to do this. Give me verbatum where in the rulebook it says this and what it says. Once you do that we can continue this discussion.

So you are saying that 100% of a model has to be touching the playing surface or it counts as destroyed?

kirsanth wrote:So you are saying that 100% of a model has to be touching the playing surface or it counts as destroyed?

Yes, he is.

Oh noes, my poor Land Raider, it's roof is not touching the table, it now assplode!

No, I am not saying that it is destroyed I am saying that you cannot have a model that is not in the playing surface.
... how do you get me saying that the model needs to be in the playing surface to 100 % of the model has to be touching the surface....

I think what KP is getting at is that 100% of the model's base (or in the case of vehicles, their bottom tracks, feet, flying base, or whatever it is) has to be in play.

Despite no such rule exisitng.

Find a rule saying that, please.

liam0404 wrote:I think what KP is getting at is that 100% of the model's base (or in the case of vehicles, their bottom tracks, feet, flying base, or whatever it is) has to be in play.

So the vehicle is destroyed when it tries to move on from reserves, because it's 'bottom tracks' aren't on the playing surface?

I didn't say that, I just said that I think that's what KP was trying to say. My 2 cents are earlier on this page.

liam0404 wrote:I didn't say that, I just said that I think that's what KP was trying to say. My 2 cents are earlier on this page.

I didn't say you did, I was just pointing out the absurdity of the assertion.

Yeah I can see you point.

If i was pushed to answer id say that once it was on the table (partially or not), it's in play.

How would you play it though, if it was half on/half off the table? I'd hate to balance my models like that (assuming that its not a big table).

I'd play it as written - they are partially on / off. If balance is an issue invoke WMS.
Done. Really really simple, and requies no made up rule.

OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

So my Battlewagon HAS to move crusing speed when it comes in from reserves or it asspoldes?!?

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

Nothing.

The unit is legally on the table.

Is it a (albeit legal) dick move? Yes, but so are Crawling Wraithlord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General_Chaos wrote:So my Battlewagon HAS to move crusing speed when it comes in from reserves or it asspoldes?!?

No. It can move Combat speed just fine.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

Nothing.

The unit is legally on the table.

No, as you cannot measure coherency to models not (at least partially) on the table.

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

Pitched Battle and Spearhead talks about deploying "in deployement zone" which is vastly different from "on the table". Dawn of War is different, though, and it seems in Dawn of War deploying models merely "on the table" is sufficient.

So, it depends on scenario whether models may be deployed slighly off the table.

Ah, I misread it. I thought you meant that the whole unit was deployed like that.

In that case, that is an ILLEGAL deployment, since you have models that are not on the table. All the models must be on the table.

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

ChrisCP wrote:Ah, so you're trying to voluntarily place a model off the board, well find a rule saying you can do that then sure

Is the ruler off the table?

Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I'd play it as written - they are partially on / off. If balance is an issue invoke WMS.
Done. Really really simple, and requies no made up rule.

On is inclusive, if part of your base is off, then the model (read it says model, not partial model) is not on the table since we can clearly see a part of its base that is not on the table.

DeathReaper wrote:On is inclusive, if part of your base is off, then the model (read it says model, not partial model) is not on the table since we can clearly see a part of its base that is not on the table.

So what is it on then? Is it floating in mid air? If part of the base is on the table, then it is on the table.

If I set your arm on fire, I still set you on fire, even though I only set part of you on fire.

Gwar! wrote:The rule that says you must move on the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

I gotta be honest - I was in the "destroyed" camp, but this is a compelling argument. If you read the text on pp94, it explicitly says you measure movement from the table's edge moving in, and that you don't place it on the edge and then move, as that is an overmove.

As such, by the rules, since vehicles cannot strafe sideways, it would never be possibly to deploy anything that is longer then 6", as it's not possible to move completely onto the table.

I think this probably is a question for the INAT, yes?

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:On is inclusive, if part of your base is off, then the model (read it says model, not partial model) is not on the table since we can clearly see a part of its base that is not on the table.

So what is it on then? Is it floating in mid air? If part of the base is on the table, then it is on the table.

If I set your arm on fire, I still set you on fire, even though I only set part of you on fire.

It is simultaneously on and off the table.

Since models have to be on the table as qualified by P.88 that means they can not be off the table.

Please direct me to the page where they are allowed, by the rules, to be off the table. (while being partially on the table)

if you can show me this I will agree that they can in fact be off the table and partially on the table.

its a Schrodinger's cat.

DeathReaper wrote:Please direct me to the page where they are allowed, by the rules, to be off the table. (while being partially on the table)

Ten seconds laterage 56, Vehicles and measuring distances. Measure to and from their hull.

Now, until you can get 100% of the vehicle's hull onto the table, you lose.
Mind you, it does NOT specify the BOTTOM of the hull--and even so I have yet to see a vehicle be able to touch 100% of even the bottom of its hull to the table. Most only touch tracks/wheels/base/etc/

There is more, but generally, it has been posted. Repeatedly.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Please direct me to the page where they are allowed, by the rules, to be off the table. (while being partially on the table)

Page 56, Vehicles and measuring distances. Measure to and from their hull.

Now, until you can get 100% of the vehicle's hull onto the table, you lose.
Mind you, it does NOT specify the BOTTOM of the hull--and even so I have yet to see a vehicle be able to touch 100% of even the bottom of its hull to the table. Most only touch tracks/wheels/base/etc/

that does not specify about they being partially on the table, please give me a page that references where they can be (Partially) off the table.

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Please direct me to the page where they are allowed, by the rules, to be off the table. (while being partially on the table)

Page 56, Vehicles and measuring distances. Measure to and from their hull.

Now, until you can get 100% of the vehicle's hull onto the table, you lose.
Mind you, it does NOT specify the BOTTOM of the hull--and even so I have yet to see a vehicle be able to touch 100% of even the bottom of its hull to the table. Most only touch tracks/wheels/base/etc/

that does not specify about they being partially on the table, please give me a page that references where they can be (Partially) off the table.

Give me a page reference that says fully on?

I gave you the page reference, it tells you to measure to the hull--you said the model has to be on the table, if I measure to the top of your vehicle and find it NOT on the table--how do you say that is not relevant?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:It is (simultaneously) on (and off) the table.

This is all that the rules ask to be true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Being simultaneously on the table and not on the table does not change the fact that you are on the table.

DeathReaper wrote:It is simultaneously on and off the table.

its a Schrodinger's cat.

No, it isn't.

If any part of it is on, then it is on.

If I cut an orange in half, it isn't partially cut and partially not cut, it is just cut.

kirsanth wrote:"I am on fire."
Does not mean that every inch of me is on fire. Heck, I do not think it would take very much of myself in flames before I would find that a legitmate statement.

This is entirely unlike what occurs in the other version.

"I am not on fire."
This does NOT mean that only part of me may be on fire. In fact, it cannot mean that.

It cannot really be both.

Objection, Irrelevant.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It is simultaneously on and off the table.

its a Schrodinger's cat.

No, it isn't.

If any part of it is on, then it is on.

If I cut an orange in half, it isn't partially cut and partially not cut, it is just cut.

By that logic

If any part of it is off, it is off.

You can not be off the table and be in play.

kirsanth wrote:
Give me a page reference that says fully on?

I gave you the page reference, it tells you to measure to the hull--you said the model has to be on the table, if I measure to the top of your vehicle and find it NOT on the table--how do you say that is not relevant?

P.88 says on.

if you are partially on you are not on the table, you are on and off the table.

On is inclusive and does not allow you to be off the table with any part of your base, since 'a model is considered to occupy the area of its base' (P.3) to follow this P.88 '...to be played on a 6' by 4'...' therefore if any part of a model is off the table it can not satisfy this requirement and is an illegal move.

"I am on fire."
Does not mean that every inch of me is on fire. Heck, I do not think it would take very much of myself in flames before I would find that a legitmate statement.

This is entirely unlike what occurs in the other version.

"I am not on fire."
This does NOT mean that only part of me may be on fire. In fact, it cannot mean that.

It cannot really be both.

DeathReaper wrote:Objection, Irrelevant.

So basically your argument boils down to "I am ignoring the other sides objections."

Classy.

Partially On is still On. How hard is that to understand?

Deathreaper how is it that you're in all honesty trying to claim with a straight face;

That being on the table does not satisfy the condition of being on the table?

ChrisCP wrote:Deathreaper how is it that you're in all honesty trying to claim with a straight face;

That being on the table does not satisfy the condition of being on the table?

On is inclusive and does not allow you to be off the table with any part of your base, since 'a model is considered to occupy the area of its base' (P.3) to follow this P.88 '...to be played on a 6' by 4'...' therefore if any part of a model is off the table it can not satisfy this requirement and is an illegal move.

its all right there.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Objection, Irrelevant.

So basically your argument boils down to "I am ignoring the other sides objections."

Classy.

Partially On is still On. How hard is that to understand?

no not ignoring your objections, but being on fire has no bearing on the discussion.

you have to be on the table This everyone will agree on yes?

However since I can point to an area of the base that is not on the table, then you can not move there. since your base is not on the table. and thus an illegal move.

DeathReaper wrote:However since I can point to an area of the base that is not on the table, then you can not move there. since your base is not on the table. and thus an illegal move.

And I can also point to such an area... the top of the base.

Therefore, you are claiming that every single model placed on the table is destroyed, even though the rules do not say as such.

Actually by definition 'area' is a 2D space. 'Base' implies the very bottom. 'Surface area' or 'volume' would support your point, Gwar!, but simply 'area of the base' does not.

I'm going to be extremely mean to DeathReaper right now, and point out that pg 88 says that the game is played 'on' a 6x4 board. So, following the 'partially on' is 'on' argument, you can legally be partially on even by the reference to page 88. There is no comment made ever in the rules with respect to being off the table other than in the case of deepstriking and restricting you from moving off.

A base is not a 2d object, it is a 3d object. The rules do not say that a models base is only the bottom area...

DeathReaper wrote:
you have to be on the table This everyone will agree on yes?

However since I can point to an area of the base that is not on the table, then you can not move there. since your base is not on the table. and thus an illegal move.

As I said for vehicles, the hull is used instead. One can always point to part of the hull and claim it is not on the table. Vehicles are destroyed every time the movement phase occurs.

How about this translation for the sake of those who cannot refuse to get it:

"I am on the table."
Does not mean that every inch of me is on the table. I do not think it would take very much of myself to be on the table before I would find that a legitmate statement (For example at a doctor visit I often dangle my legs when asked to get on an examination table and it has never been an issue).

This is entirely unlike what occurs in the other version.

"I am not on the table."
This does NOT mean that only part of me may be on the table. In fact, it cannot mean that.

Sorry for the original post regarding fire for being so confusing as to entirely baffle everyone's sensibilities.

DeathReaper wrote:
However since I can point to an area of the base that is on the table, then you can move there. Since your base is on the table and thus a legal move.

Fixed your grammar too =\

Ail-Shan wrote:Actually by definition 'area' is a 2D space. 'Base' implies the very bottom. 'Surface area' or 'volume' would support your point, Gwar!, but simply 'area of the base' does not.

I'm going to be extremely mean to DeathReaper right now, and point out that pg 88 says that the game is played 'on' a 6x4 board. So, following the 'partially on' is 'on' argument, you can legally be partially on even by the reference to page 88. There is no comment made ever in the rules with respect to being off the table other than in the case of deepstriking and restricting you from moving off.

Actually it states that you have a playing area. Only things that are within this playing area count as being in play. If you have half a model not in a designated playing area that model is not a legal target, or particpant in the game. So your assumption of partially on is incorrect, as there is a limited area of play. Furthermore, how come when anyone who disagree's with you guys and says that you are ignoring the other side of the coin, you ignore that post? In other words when you say partially on is on, and we say partially off is off.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
However since I can point to an area of the base that is not on the table, then you can not move there. since your base is not on the table. and thus an illegal move..

Fixed your grammar too =\

I fixed your fixing of my grammar.

Units that fall back and touch the table edge are destroyed, this must mean the edge is out of play for units.

ergo if any part of the base is off the table = out of play.

DeathReaper wrote:Units that fall back and touch the table edge are destroyed, this must mean the edge is out of play for units.

...

Seriously?

Units that are falling back and hit the edge are removed BECAUSE THE RULES FOR FALLING BACK SAY SO.

You have just gone and committed the "Tiger Repelling Rock" or the "I have Legs, a Tiger has Legs, therefore I am a Tiger" logical fallacy.

Just because units falling back have a special interaction with the table edge doesn't mean all units do.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Actually it states that you have a playing area. Only things that are within this playing area count as being in play. If you have half a model not in a designated playing area that model is not a legal target, or particpant in the game. So your assumption of partially on is incorrect, as there is a limited area of play. Furthermore, how come when anyone who disagree's with you guys and says that you are ignoring the other side of the coin, you ignore that post? In other words when you say partially on is on, and we say partially off is off.

^ +1

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Units that fall back and touch the table edge are destroyed, this must mean the edge is out of play for units.

...

Seriously?

Units that are falling back and hit the edge are removed BECAUSE THE RULES FOR FALLING BACK SAY SO.

You have just gone and committed the "Tiger Repelling Rock" or the "I have Legs, a Tiger has Legs, therefore I am a Tiger" logical fallacy.

Just because units falling back have a special interaction with the table edge doesn't mean all units do.

Let me start by saying that I get that partially on the table is on the table, but it is also off the table.

Where does it talk about units touching the table edge? (because falling back is the only place i could find it)

baring that, ON MEANS FULLY ON, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE NOT FULLY ON, YOU ARE OFF AS WELL, AND THE GAME IS MEANT TO BE PLAYED ON THE SURFACE, NOT OFF THE SURFACE. (see i can type in unnecessary capital letters as well)

if you can not see this I can not help you.

Ok, so if a model is not fully on, by your logic it is an illegal placement.

When placed on it's tracks, a Land Raiders roof is not on the table. Therefore, by your logic, it is illegally placed.

And that is why your argument is completely wrong.

Gwar! wrote:Ok, so if a model is not fully on, by your logic it is an illegal placement.

When placed on it's tracks, a Land Raiders roof is not on the table. Therefore, by your logic, it is illegally placed.

And that is why your argument is completely wrong.

That is not what i said at all. to think that way is completely wrong.

Ail-Shan wrote: 'Surface area' or 'volume' would support your point, Gwar!, but simply 'area of the base' does not.

I was speaking of bases/parts that touch the table, since by default, vehicles do not have a base.

For models with bases they have to be fully on the table.

For models without bases the parts that touch the table have to be fully on the table.

Thus your argument is completely wrong.

DeathReaper wrote:That is not what i said at all. to think that way is completely wrong.

So why is that part of the model less important than another part of the model?

You are claiming the model must be fully on the table. If so, why doesn't THAT bit have to be on the table but THIS bit does?

Gwar on page 56 in the BRB it states that for vehicles you are to measure from the hull of the vehicle, not the top of the vehicle. The hull of the vehicle. Not one part of the vehicle that can be taken out of context and used to prove a false point. Addtionally the hull is placed somewhere within the gaming surface the way they are meant to be.(in other words they are designed that way) So find a way in the rules that says that is not the case for yourself and throw down, otherwise stop throwing it out there. It does not add anything to this debate.

DeathReaper wrote:
That is not what i said at all. to think that way is completely wrong.

You've been proven wrong logically. You've been proven wrong linguistically. You've been handed multiple examples of how absurd and unplayable your argument makes the game. You've given vague responses that don't specifically support you to requests for solid rule evidence. All about 10 times.
I'm really not sure why the thread is still going at this point, we all really should just move on.

The sequence of events that leads the vehicle to be partially on is perfectly legal, and the position of being partially on is in this case perfectly legal. No rules say otherwise. The end.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Gwar on page 56 in the BRB it states that for vehicles you are to measure from the hull of the vehicle, not the top of the vehicle. The hull of the vehicle. Not one part of the vehicle that can be taken out of context and used to prove a false point. Addtionally the hull is placed somewhere within the gaming surface the way they are meant to be.(in other words they are designed that way) So find a way in the rules that says that is not the case for yourself and throw down, otherwise stop throwing it out there. It does not add anything to this debate.

What?

Page 56 deals with measuring range and distances. What has that got to do with ANYTHING in this thread?

And for the record, the top IS the hull of the vehicle. If it wasn't, blast markers would be useless against vehicles, since "When firing a blast weapon against a vehicle, place the marker with the hole over any part of the vehicle's hull and then roll for scatter as normal." If the top isn't hull, they can never be hit by blasts.

In other words your assertion for the top of the vehicle that is not touching the playing surface is niether here nor there. As vehicles are designed with no bases and thier rules for being in play are different.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That is not what i said at all. to think that way is completely wrong.

So why is that part of the model less important than another part of the model?

You are claiming the model must be fully on the table. If so, why doesn't THAT bit have to be on the table but THIS bit does?

All parts of the base are equally important, than is why they all must be on the gaming surface.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

That is not what i said at all. to think that way is completely wrong.

You've been proven wrong logically. You've been proven wrong linguistically. You've been handed multiple examples of how absurd and unplayable your argument makes the game. You've given vague responses that don't specifically support you to requests for solid rule evidence. All about 10 times.
I'm really not sure why the thread is still going at this point, we all really should just move on.

Thanks for adding nothing to the discussion.

I have proven the other side wrong logically and linguistically. You've been handed multiple examples of how your argument lies outside the rules requirements.

There is a clearly defined playing area. Only things that are within this playing area count as being in play. If you have half a model not in a designated playing area that model is not a legal target, or particpant in the game.

Partially on is partially off. therefore the whole base must be within the playing area.

Thus it is wrong to move off or partially on the board edge.

I can see your side of it. but i do not agree with it. if you can not see my side then i have nothing more to prove.

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
However since I can point to an area of the base that is not on the table, then you can not move there. since your base is not on the table. and thus an illegal move..

Fixed your grammar too =\

I fixed your fixing of my grammar.

Units that fall back and touch the table edge are destroyed, this must mean the edge is out of play for units.

ergo if any part of the base is off the table = out of play.

That's nice, your display of complete disregard for English and its conventions has made it abhorrently apparent that no you're not stupid, you're just trolling.
Good day to you sir.

Actually it states that you have a playing area

Actually actually, it states that you have a playing surface that has edges that you must be on (read page 88. it only states that you must be 'on' the playing surface).

standard missions are designed to be played on a 6'x4' gaming surface

That is directly out of page 88. Nowhere does it say 'in,' 'within,' or anything synonymous. Only on, and it defines edges. With the argument that being partially on is on, you are still on the gaming surface as defined by page 88.

I was speaking of bases/parts that touch the table, since by default, vehicles do not have a base.
For models with bases they have to be fully on the table.
For models without bases the parts that touch the table have to be fully on the table.
Thus your argument is completely wrong.

That point wasn't directed at you DeathReaper.

Only things that are within this playing area count as being in play.

Again, it says 'on' when defining the gaming surface as well. If it said 'in,' than you would be irrefutably correct, but it does not.

Ouze wrote:
I think this probably is a question for the INAT, yes?

Good luck getting a reasonable answer in a reasonable amount of time.