Just played (and lost) a game where my opponent moved his landraider onto the board from reserves. He claimed it was only a six inch move so fired all his guns. I claimed the move should be at least seven inches, because of the landraiders length, and he should only fire one (non defensive) weapon. We played it his way (he whinges more than I do) but what do you think?


MODQUISITION EDIT:
Gentlemen, at this point I shall be running this thread in accord with Dakka rules and the Dakka YMDC tenets as a test thread . Posts following the Notice below should abide by those tenets or be subject to modification.

PLease note both aspects if appropriate-"Play as" discussion vs. "RAW discussion"

There is no official ruling on this. The most accepted answer is from the INAT FAQ which states that you may move on to the board the 6" allowed at combat speed, and be hanging off the table, however any templates on your hull and off the table still count as hits, and passengers may not disembark from any point until the vehicle is fully on the table.

He could have also moved on 6" then pivoted so the whole of the vehicle was on the table.

Assuming the LR model is over 6" long:

I think he could sit with his LR hanging off the board and pivot sideways to fit on, thereby claiming a shorter move. However, he would be unable to easily move the LR away from the board edges in later turns as he would then be unable to pivot and move forward.
If he did that, he would be able to fire two weapons +all defensive the turn it comes on, per Machine Spirit rules. As you played it, he should still only have been able to fire that amount. If the move was greater than 6", it should have only shot one weapon.

RaW, well there are no RaW

Came on straight, did not hang over the edge, fired 2 main and all defensive. Has he pivoted he would not have had the LOS he needed to shoot up my guard. LR model is at least 7" long. This makes him TFG in my book.

Let's not go so far as "TFG"... call it a misunderstanding unless you've got a lot more reasons behind that.

General Mayhem wrote:Came on straight, did not hang over the edge, fired 2 main and all defensive. Has he pivoted he would not have had the LOS he needed to shoot up my guard. LR model is at least 7" long. This makes him TFG in my book.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Just miffed cos I lost and getting shot to bits by a LR crusader was a major part of it. (that and Hestan Vulkan making all his meltas twin linked..choke..

I figured arc of fire might be an issue with pivoting. If he moved over 7", he moved over 7" and may only fire 1 weapon (and only then because it's a LR).

General Mayhem wrote:Just miffed cos I lost and getting shot to bits by a LR crusader was a major part of it. (that and Hestan Vulkan making all his meltas twin linked..choke..

Well to me it sounds like you are a sore loser. In any case, that is no excuse for breaking the forum rules.

I went with his interpretation but thanks anyway

The important question is, was the front of his hull more than 6" away from the table edge(assuming, as you say, he came on straight

Yes, based on the description given.

Did the extra distance make a game difference?

In keeping with the INAT FAQ, my usual preference in these situations is to allow the move, but make the LR hang off the board so as to avoid it getting more movement distance than it's entitled to.

If I did allow my opponent to move it entirely onto the board (say, to better ensure the model's safety/reduce likelihood of it falling off the table), I'd ask that distances be measured from where the guns would be if no part of the LR was more than 6" onto the table. No game advantage should accrue from moving the model too far. All distances (for shooting, disembarkation, movement next turn, etc.) should be as if it moved no more than 6" onto the table.

This is something not really covered in the rules. Personally, if I'm planning on bring raiders in from reserve then I'll ask my opponent if they're okay with the ass hanging off the table when it comes on. No-one's ever refused.

I certainly wouldn't move it entirely on whilst claiming combat speed or allow someone to do that.

I would use the INAT FAQ to address this situation. It covers it well.

G

A six inch move for the Land Raider would only allow one main weapon to fire and then Machine Spirit would allow another. Defensive weapons could fire of course.

He couldn't fire all his weapons if he moved at all. The only vehicles that can move and fire everything are Fast (which the Land Raider ain't).

Gentlemen, at this point I shall be running this thread in accord with Dakka rules and the Dakka YMDC tenets. This is a test thread for that. Posts following this Notice should abide by those tenets or be subject to modification.

Posts after this thread may be reported if they violate a tenet-please cite the tenet if doing so for that reason, but be reasonable in that reporting. Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So
As Played:
suggested: INAT FAQ (may move on to the board the 6" allowed at combat speed, and be hanging off the table, however any templates on your hull and off the table still count as hits, and passengers may not disembark from any point until the vehicle is fully on the table. )

or should it be that the vehicle must move at appropriate speed to get the vehicel completely on the board?

RAW: grey area or clear?

The RAW is clear: you are compelled to move onto the board, nowehere does it qualify this any further therefore any distance on is allowable.

Strictly the INAT FAQ is a muddle of the two: blast markers that scatter so the centre is beyond the edge of the table are an automatic miss, however it seems a reasonable compromise to avoid silly 1" on LR.

Where are vehicles allowed to be "partially" on the table? The rules say on or off- there is no discussion of in between states. There are very specific rules for table edges and normally models cannot voluntarily leave a table edge by crossing that plane- things off the table do not exist for models on the table and allowing partial on table deployment opens up several new problems. Thus, the LR would need to move "on" to the table. If this requires more than siz inches of movement, then it requires more than a six inch move! So the LR can move on at cruising speed.

No, the rules say you must move ON, but where does it qualify this? I'd ask you to actually post rules rather than complain about it

IF I am asked to place something on the playing surface I can do two things:

1) Place the model entirely ont he table- rule satisfied
2) Place the model partially on the table, but still on the table - rule satisfied.

If you wish to disagree you must provide rules.

Finally - moving off the table is entirely different to moving on the table. Assuming reciprocity opens up even more problems than you suggest.

Because it is a permissive rules sets and the rules have to allow it? The rules clearly allow models to be fully on the table. Please present the rules that allow a model to be partially on table. According to the rules, if any part of a model's base leaves the table edge, it is going off table. That seems to weigh against models being partially on, even if it is not 100% reciprocal.

No one is complaining- rather this is a rules discussion.

If you use the INAT FAQ it allows you to bring a tank partially onto the table. I think it is a good solution for an obvious oversight on the part of GW.

G

jmurph wrote:Because it is a permissive rules sets and the rules have to allow it? The rules clearly allow models to be fully on the table. Please present the rules that allow a model to be partially on table. According to the rules, if any part of a model's base leaves the table edge, it is going off table. That seems to weigh against models being partially on, even if it is not 100% reciprocal.

No one is complaining- rather this is a rules discussion.

The rules do not state that models have to be fully on the table at all.

jmurph wrote:Because it is a permissive rules sets and the rules have to allow it? The rules clearly allow models to be fully on the table. Please present the rules that allow a model to be partially on table. According to the rules, if any part of a model's base leaves the table edge, it is going off table. That seems to weigh against models being partially on, even if it is not 100% reciprocal.

No one is complaining- rather this is a rules discussion.

Sigh - I've provided rules, you've provided nothing and are simply incorrect, and are furthermore making things up.

The rules literally state you must move ON.

Please point out where the words "fully", "entirelY" or ANY other qualifier are used. Like I asked previously. You mean it doesn't? Which means that any fulfillment of the criteria of "ON" is therefore permitted? Wow, who'd have thought

As I also stated - rules for going OFF do not equal rules for going ON the table. Again I would suggest you provide actual rules to back up your assertions. Reciprocity is never given in the ruleset for moving off the table, which is what you would need to prove your point. It does not weigh *anything* into the rules for moving on, you're just making bald assertions.

"Fully", "Entirely", and similar qualifiers stating completeness are pretty much implied by any appropriate statement in the English language. If you were to ask to buy a Land Raider to test this theory out, and the shop keeper asked you for $60, you'd have to give them $60. You can't pull it halfway out of your pocket, or give them a percentage, because until you've given them all $60, you haven't given them $60 yet, so you haven't satisfied the condition, and you're not getting your model until you do.

While there are a lot of weird statements that can be misinterpreted in the GW rulesets, this isn't one of them. This argument of "I can partially do it and that counts" is nothing more than conjuring up loopholes to pretend that the rules work (which is an odd change of pace I might add). While a partial move on may be the proper solution for a fun game, by the RAW it doesn't work (without the aforementioned pivot). So either move on at cruising speed, or accept the INAT FAQ version, but don't give credit to GW for leaving a way to satisfy this rule at combat speed where there isn't one.

Malecus wrote:"Fully", "Entirely", and similar qualifiers stating completeness are pretty much implied by any appropriate statement in the English language.

I Take a Plank of Wood, I place half of it on table and half hanging off so it stays on the table.

Is it On or Off the Table?

Erm, no. "on" is nothing like "entirely" and completely different to "fully" - in this context they are qualifiers to "on" and it is those qualifiers that is missing.

"On" has a fairly sensible meaning in the English language. By placing the model on the table, you filfill this - whether this is partially or not. That is why it would need a qualifier.

As you cannot show this requirement except with apples and oranges examples (really, a transaction is nothing like the example precisely because in a non barter axiom system there is no requriement for a qualifer: it is binary. "On" is not binary in this context) I suggest you provide some rules to back up your incorrect assertions.

There is no RaW but my view on the RaI is if possible it should be moved all the way onto the board and counts as moving that far.
Also if it moved more then 6" that's not combat speed, its cruising speed so only one gun from PotMS.

Personally I wish GW had written the rule as "Vehicles coming in from reserves are place touching the table and count as moving at combat speed. They may not move further this turn (walkers may still run and assault if possible). "

WEll, there is RaW: "on" can be satisifed by the model being placed partially on, as it is still "on". Without any other requirements you can place the model 0.0000001mm "on" the table and the rules permit this - the English language backing you up here

You can't even really argue intent here as there aren't really any clues as to what they wanted vehicles to do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:WEll, there is RaW: "on" can be satisifed by the model being placed partially on, as it is still "on". Without any other requirements you can place the model 0.0000001mm "on" the table and the rules permit this - the English language backing you up here

You can't even really argue intent here as there aren't really any clues as to what they wanted vehicles to do.

Really when did the edge of the table stop being the end of the world?

That quote was refering to models moving OFF, not models moving ON.

/nitpick.

He coulda moved on and not pivoted competely to the side to make it. I do it all the time with my LR's (come in 6 by pivoting slightly so I'm not hanging over).

I suppose *sigh* is the best reference you could come up with nosfetau? I mean not one page number? Okay how about any diagram or picture showing a model partially off? No? Not one? Then stop being so condescending and go find one!

Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off. No partial anything just on. Nowhere in the rulebook does it contemplate models being partially "on". So where are you getting that they can be?

Referring to casual English is often problematic in a rules discussion since we are usually dealing with defined terms in context of the rules universe.

Gwar: The rules say the model must be on the table. You ask if a board balanced on the table is on or off. This is a false dilemma. The answer is, of course neither. It is partially on and partially off. For abbreviation, we generally say it is on, because it didn't fall. Yet that in no way helps us in a rules context.

Every single depiction of a model in the rulebook shows models wholly on the table. Thus we know that this is legal and allowed. No models are shown partially on, nor do the rules say anywhere that this partial definition is included as being "on". Since this is permissive rules set, we can only do what the rules say we may. Since we are not anywhere told we may have models "partially on", it seems the stronger position that they may not. Assuming more seems to go beyond what the rules provide.

Kirsanth: But still gives some insight into how the writers view the game setup and table limits.

jmurph wrote:Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off.

Nor does it say "Completely on" or "Entirely on". "On" can be applied to anything that has even 1 Atom on the table Surface.

It's all GW's fault that they didnt make it six inches long. And there should be a rule that any conversion models, tanks, or otherwise, cannot exceed a diameter or length of six inches! This also means that it will fit neatly on the roads they sell...

Correct, but it can equally be said to be off the table by the same logic. Do you not see a problem there?

Gwar! wrote:

jmurph wrote:Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off.

Nor does it say "Completely on" or "Entirely on". "On" can be applied to anything that has even 1 Atom on the table Surface.

Which would put a few problems into the balance perspective, and your beautifully painted Land Raider comes crashing to the ground.
Sorry, I'll shut up now.

jmurph wrote:Correct, but it can equally be said to be off the table by the same logic. Do you not see a problem there?

Except, it isn't off, because it is on the table...

jmurph wrote:I suppose *sigh* is the best reference you could come up with nosfetau? I mean not one page number? Okay how about any diagram or picture showing a model partially off? No? Not one? Then stop being so condescending and go find one!

Well, how about:

When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling players own....

page 94, "Arriving from Reserve"

So, I ask again - where is "onto" qualified? What, it isn't? Does that mean you need to provide a rules quote to *gasp* actually backup what you are saying? Like I had already done and you ignored?

Unlike you I've been through this argument before: you should perhaps search. On both here and 'Seer "onto" can be shown to be completely fulfilled by moving the model so it is touching the table surface. So, I ask again: I have shown MY permission, how about you show the restriction? A page number and paragraph would be good. Or you could waffle on about " moving off" being a bit similar to "moving on" or that "partially on" isnt actually "on" without any basis for doing so.

jmurph wrote:
Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off. No partial anything just on. Nowhere in the rulebook does it contemplate models being partially "on". So where are you getting that they can be?

Because the rule for moving on from reserve says so. Quite a simple concept that I'm not sure you've grasped just yet. "onto" is not qualified, therefore if you fulfill the criteria you have got permission. Does it say "fully" onto? No? Well that means that partially is fine.

Everything else from that quote isnt actually an argument about rules by the way: I have shown where it can be, YOU have to show it cannot be.

Actually, you have to show two things:
1) Partially on = on
and
2) Permission for a model to be partially off the table

See here's the issue: even if you take a broad view of onto, you still need to have permission to have the model off the table. Off doesn't say completely either. So, by a broad definition, the model is both on and off the table. Fun, huh? Yet I have yet to see anything allowing you to keep the model off the table.

And I'm not sure you can even get that far. Yes, it can be shown that onto *may* include partially on. But that is far from definitive.

Gwar: You assume too much. Something may be both on and off the table if we are taking a view that includes partially.

jmurph wrote:
Gwar: You assume too much. Something may be both on and off the table if we are taking a view that includes partially.

Therein lies the rub.

no, landraiders and other large vehicles cant move on from reserve.

If something is On, even partially, it cannot be off. They are Mutually Exclusive.

Nosferatu has gone and given rule quotes and proof for his argument. Why can you not do the same?

Why is that Gwar? Does it make a difference if the majority of the model is off? Or are you just assuming off is a negative state that any partial "on"ness may negate?

And I offer every diagram and picture in the book showing models wholly on. Fair enough?

jmurph wrote:Actually, you have to show two things:
1) Partially on = on

Done - the English Language agrees with me, it disagrees with you. Given the rulebook is written in English then I suggest you find a better argument than "prove English to me"

So you now need to prove the contrary. Page numbers please. for the 5th (?) time.

jmurph wrote:
and
2) Permission for a model to be partially off the table

Not needed as the model is not moving OFF the table. How many times do you need to be told that moving off the table is different to moving on? In fact hwo about you prove they are the same, and then we can perhaps move on? Again smoe page numbers would be useful.

Really, how about you actually provide some rules quotes to back up your argument? I've shown permission, which is all I need to do.

Additionally: the reserves rules do not give a flying fig about the model being partially off the table: it only requires that the model be "on" the table. Which I've shown can be satisfied perfectly well.

page 94, "Arriving from Reserve"

I think that is the crux of the argument, no?

So your position is that the model may be partially off the table (which by the same logic that partially=on also means it is off the table) because the rules don't say you can't?

I see a problem here....

The reserves actually mention large vehicles, and it says they need to move as if they were positioned just off the table the previous turn and then moved as normal.

(See:Monolith > 6"? issues)

No, Partially On cannot be in any way logically conceived as off the table.

jmurph wrote:(which by the same logic that partially=on also means it is PARTIALLY off the table)

Solved your problem.

Gwar! wrote:No, Partially On cannot be in any way logically conceived as off the table.

So partially on cannot be conceived as partially off as well? And since we are including partially in the respective categorizations, partially off = off just as partially on = on.

It's true...although the whole subject is touchy: if someone is hanging off a cliff, then their fingers are still on, but the saying goes "hanging OFF"

And they are hanging on

True. This whole business is getting tiresome.

jmurph wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, Partially On cannot be in any way logically conceived as off the table.

So partially on cannot be conceived as partially off as well? And since we are including partially in the respective categorizations, partially off = off just as partially on = on.

And the rules still don't care that the model is off as well as on: it just requires you move "onto". Which you have done.

So, still waiting on your rules quotes - do you have any?

All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world ;-)

Rules quote? For what? Saying that a model may not be off table? No, I was looking for one that allowed a model to be partially off table. Didn't find it.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. The positions seem to be as follows:

1) A vehicle moving on may be placed partially on table. The rules do not say that a model cannot be placed partially off of the table and any portion of the model on the table satisfies the requirement for moving "onto" the table. (Expansive view)

2) A vehicle must be placed fully on the table or not at all. Every instance depicted in the rulebook shows models wholly on and no rule allows the model to be partially off the table. (Restrictive view)

Readers are free to evaluate the value of each position.

So images that do NOT appear are used as proof?

Interesting.

You need to provide rules quotes to back up your view that the model must be fully on(to) the table. Like you';ve been asked to since the start, and you have yet to do.

Point 2) has irrelevancies in it: the diagrams cannot by themselves show that partially on is not allowed, unless they specifically address the point. As they don't they don't add anything to the actual rules as written argument.

The model must move onto the table. Therefore it cannot still be off the table. Therefore a model that satisfies both "is on the the table" and "is off the table" does not meet the reserve requirements.

I'm sorry Nosferatutu, you will need to provide a rules reference in the BRB (or a codex, if you desire) to prove that you are, in fact, allowed to move models partially on the table when it is well within its ability to move fully onto the table (by pivoting, moving faster, etc.).

The burden of proof here is on you, now prove it.

ajfirecracker wrote:Therefore it cannot still be off the table.

Why?

RxGhost wrote:I'm sorry Nosferatutu, you will need to provide a rules reference in the BRB (or a codex, if you desire) to prove that you are, in fact, allowed to move models partially on the table when it is well within its ability to move fully onto the table (by pivoting, moving faster, etc.).

The burden of proof here is on you, now prove it.

Already have done, if you'd bothered reading the posts.

Additionally please be more precise: "fully" is a word that never appears in the reserves rules for arriving on the table, unless you add the words in erroneously. I have also shown that partially on(to) satisifies "on". So, I have my permission, you now need to back up your assertion that "fully" is required, except so far no one has been able to do so.

RxGhost wrote:I'm sorry Nosferatutu, you will need to provide a rules reference in the BRB (or a codex, if you desire) to prove that you are, in fact, allowed to move models partially on the table when it is well within its ability to move fully onto the table (by pivoting, moving faster, etc.).

The burden of proof here is on you, now prove it.

He has Proven it. Please read before posting.

kirsanth: If it is still off the table it has not moved on.

(This is most obvious if you simply leave the model sitting under the battlefield/in its case, but still true if you put the tip of the hull touching the board edge)

You're not allowed to move models off the table (per the FAQ), so you can't stop your move before being fully on. This is because the model counts as having started on the table (you measure as if from the board edge) except for special rules which tell you to count models coming from reserves differently.

Why would you think you could occupy any area other than the gaming surface? There's simply no rule to this effect. Nosferatu has not shown that this is allowed, he has merely shown that the reserve rules in particular fail to make the point explicit. This does not constitute a permission. You may satisfy reserve requirements while still failing to satisfy general requirements (such as models being on the table).

If you have moved onto the table, you have fulfilled the requirement to move onto.

It may be off the table as well, but that doesnt cancel out being on the table like some form of mathematical equation.

ajfirecracker wrote:kirsanth: If it is still off the table it has not moved on.

(This is most obvious if you simply leave the model sitting under the battlefield/in its case, but still true if you put the tip of the hull touching the board edge)

That has no bearing on the conversation.
The discussion was about moving onto the table, as opposed to not moving onto the table - which you mentioned.

Again, there are vehicles longer than 6". Vehicles are to "move onto the table as normal", when coming from reserves. Even, asn especially large vehicles - as per the reserves rules.

If you can position the vehicle such that only part of the vehicle is on the table, could you not later pivot the vehicle, taking it off the table altogether and preventing assaults?

ajfirecracker wrote:If you can position the vehicle such that only part of the vehicle is on the table, could you not later pivot the vehicle, taking it off the table altogether and preventing assaults?

You cannot move it off the table.
You can move it onto the table.

How about just having a tiny portion of the hull over the table, such that only 1 enemy can get into BTB? Is that legal?

Sorry this took a few, I'm at work.

BRB Pg. 94 "Arriving from reserve" states that the model must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge.

If you have not moved 100% of the model onto the table, how can you possibly satisfy this rule?

You cannot deploy/deep strike/infiltrate less than an entire unit, how could you deploy less than an entire vehicle (which is also a unit)?

RxGhost, the claim being advocated (which I disagree with) is that having any portion of the vehicle on the table counts as having the vehicle on the table.

No one is claiming that the vehicle is not deployed.
?!?!
Except the folks saying that it cannot move onto the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As I play Tyranids, this also applies to Hierophants, Hierodules, Harridans, and at least one Trygon.

I realize the Apoc-ness of it, but again, I play Tyranids.

When a model moves normally, it can move up its maximum move. WMS is one of the few true restrictions on this, as well as moving off of the table.
Moving on, while debatable, is clearly allowed.
Moving partially on is moving on - as there is no stipulation, outside WMS perhaps, as to what else happens.
Outside of Tyranids,

kirsanth wrote:Again, there are vehicles longer than 6". Vehicles are to "move onto the table as normal" when coming from reserves, even and especially, large vehicles - as per the reserves rules.

I know Aj, that's my point of contention as well. If you deploy in that manner (not fully on the table) then you are not playing by the rules. You have not deployed the unit legally as per the rules allow and you have not made a legal move.

Since there is no condition in the entire ruleset that I have ever seen or read that allows this kind of 'deployment' (and remember, we're looking for rules that ALLOW things here) I'm sticking with my reading, that you cannot deploy less than 100% of your unit...and I'm not adding things by ommission either.

And let's not forget that it is within the Land Raider's ability to move fully onto the table, you just might not be able to squeeze as many shots out of it as you'd like.

You are adding a requirement in that is simply not present: you are requiring that 100% be on the table, which can *only* be the case if the rules state.

As the rule only requires "onto" as soon as I put the model so it is touch the table surface I have complied with the rule. You cannot show this to be otherwise unless you can show that the rule explicitly states "fully" or some other qualification of the word "onto". "onto" by itself is satisifed by simply putting the model partially "onto"

If you don;t believe this this isn't my fault, you simply do not understand English. You would have, if you'd bothered to read the thread, noted that I already provided that quote and it does not help your case at all, it simply proves mine.

So unless you have a new definition of "onto", or some other rules quotes, then you don't have anything to disprove my argument.

No Colonel Sanders, you're wrong.

You insist that I'm adding a requirement that isn't present, when in fact...you are.

By insisting that the rules don't say "fully" you feel that this entitles you to play in a way that is not consistent with the content of the book, it's rules as written and the spirit and intent of the game.

You can insult my understanding of English if you want, you can even put semi-colons where apostraphes shuld go, but that doesn't make you right.

nosferatu: Don't forget that the reserve requirement is not the only ruleset in play here. You've got general movement rules and meta-rules like permissive rulesets. You may satisfy the reserve requirement and fail to satisfy reserve requirements or meta requirements such as having permission to make a particular action.

So, even if you are not required by the reserve rules to place your model fully on the table, you may be required to do so by general movement rules or permissive ruleset restrictions.

On permissive rulesets: We know that you may move a model onto the table and thereby satisfy the "arriving from reserves" conditions. What rule allows you to place the model (in general) partially on the table and partially off?

The problem is that 'partially on' throws up EVEN MORE problems.

Let's assume that Nosferatu's reading is correct, and that since the model is partially on the table, this counts as 'on' and is legal.

Let's also assume that I have a 7'x5' kitchen table, and we play on the 6'x4' in the middle, leaving us a 6" rim around the edge.

By this reading, I can legally choose to bring my Basilisk only 1" onto the playing area. The rear and side fire arcs are practically nonexistent, so I get an advantage when people shoot at me. The barrel of my Earthshaker cannon is still on the table, so i can fire it. And I'm 5" further away from all your weapons. Even better, I can move the Basilisk left and right, as long as i don't go further off the table, a long as I'm still partially 'ON', and don't 'move off'.

By this reading of the rules, all of the above is perfectly legal.

On the other hand, we have an alternate reading of the rules which poses fewer problems - we read 'on' as meaning 'entirely on' and say that Land Raiders must move at Cruising speed. Easy, and breaks less other rules.

ArbitorIan wrote:By this reading, I can legally choose to bring my Basilisk only 1" onto the playing area. The rear and side fire arcs are practically nonexistent, so I get an advantage when people shoot at me. The barrel of my Earthshaker cannon is still on the table, so i can fire it. And I'm 5" further away from all your weapons. Even better, I can move the Basilisk left and right, as long as i don't go further off the table, a long as I'm still partially 'ON', and don't 'move off'.

While I can see where you are coming from, and where you are going, I think it is a bit off.
Furthur movement phases, moving sideways will move you off, and so is disallowed. Moving FROM off the table is expressly allowed. And in fact that movement is done normally - ignoring restrictions that could prevent movement.
As for arcs of fire. . . how does that change from moving so the back is against the table edge? Either way only assaults can hit its rear, and LOS can be drawn to the sides for shooting.

ArbitorIan wrote:The problem is that 'partially on' throws up EVEN MORE problems.

Let's assume that Nosferatu's reading is correct, and that since the model is partially on the table, this counts as 'on' and is legal.

Let's also assume that I have a 7'x5' kitchen table, and we play on the 6'x4' in the middle, leaving us a 6" rim around the edge.

By this reading, I can legally choose to bring my Basilisk only 1" onto the playing area. The rear and side fire arcs are practically nonexistent, so I get an advantage when people shoot at me. The barrel of my Earthshaker cannon is still on the table, so i can fire it. And I'm 5" further away from all your weapons. Even better, I can move the Basilisk left and right, as long as i don't go further off the table, a long as I'm still partially 'ON', and don't 'move off'.

By this reading of the rules, all of the above is perfectly legal.

On the other hand, we have an alternate reading of the rules which poses fewer problems - we read 'on' as meaning 'entirely on' and say that Land Raiders must move at Cruising speed. Easy, and breaks less other rules.

I can brake it further ... a Battle wagon with red paint moves 1" it still counts as stationary so the looters can fire this turn. As above all thats showing is the AV14 front

Where does it say LOS has to be drawn only on the table?
I understand blast will not hit, but that is the only one I see.

Multi-table games are included in suggestions, and some of those SUGGEST (or rather, require) shots across table edges.

Multi-table game use all sorts of special rules, as do almost all the special missions and campaigns suggested. They're really not a good source to cite for normal games' rules.

RxGhost wrote:No Colonel Sanders, you're wrong.

You insist that I'm adding a requirement that isn't present, when in fact...you are.

LOL. Nope, that is utterly incorrect.

"onto" is the only requirement in this, the only one at all. "fully" would be adding a requirement, as would adding in "partially", however the lack of either means that BOTH can fulfil the "onto" requirement. "onto" is the superset, as it has no additional restrictions place on it.

BTW that was quite ridiculous an argument: saying that the lack of further requirements is adding a requirement in? lolwut?

RxGhost wrote:
By insisting that the rules don't say "fully"

You mean by reading the book and finding that the don't say fully? Wow silly me to "insist" that the book says what it does!

RxGhost wrote:
you feel that this entitles you to play in a way that is not consistent with the content of the book, it's rules as written and the spirit and intent of the game.

The rules for ruins are not consistent with the rest of the rules for movement. Does this mean we can ignore them? The rules for Jump Infantry are not consistent with the rest of the books rules on infantry either, so we should ignore these as well!

The problem with your statement is that a) consistency is irrelevant here: when one rule is more specific than another it cannot be fully consistent; b) YOU are ignoring the actual rules and inserting words that do not exist and making up requirements that are absent; and c) spirit and intent have no place ina strict rules discussion when discussing the actual rules. You are close to breaking tenet 7 btw, as spirit starts to bring in TMIR. Also it shows *incredible* hubris to state that you are the arbiter of the games spirit or intent, as you have nothing to back you up on either and nor, do I suspect, are you Alessio.

RxGhost wrote:
You can insult my understanding of English if you want, you can even put semi-colons where apostraphes shuld go, but that doesn't make you right.

Yes, typos are really consistent or on a level with not understanding that "onto" is less restrictive than "fully onto", and that "partially onto" is sufficient to satisfy "onto". You also mispelled "apostrophe", which is quite amusing.

Now to people with coherent arguments

We know that "partially onto" satisfies "onto", and your only other directive is to move "normally" onto the table. Nowhere in movement is "moving onto the table" defined, you are only told you cannot move off the table. Nothing in those sections places a requirement that the model is fully | entirely | totally on the table in order to perform actions or to be placed legally.

It also maky cause some issues, however the only time you are given permission to move onto the table is in reserves, therefore if you want to pertially move on and then move in a later turn you have to move ahead directly until the rear clears the table - otherwise parts must "swing" off the table as you move. This is quite limiting so would negate some of the advantage.

ALso, nowhere does it say LOS only applies on the table: If you can see the model you can shoot it. The only issue here would be with blast weaponry, where it specifically states that the centre of the hole over the end of the table is a miss. No other rules place requirements that I can find.

Tri: the RPJ rules states it counts as moving 1" less than it does: if you move 1" you have still moved 0", and therefore not remained stationary.

If you do not move onto the table, you are moving off the table. This you are not allowed to do.

Whether or not it causes issues is a conversation point, but it has no bearing on what the rules say.

However, you may not move off the table implies that you may not move your model such that it passes through "off the table" or ends its move "off the table". There's no reason I see to believe that the "moving onto" restriction would free you from the second, especially if you take the permissive nature of the rulesets into account.

The RaW is simple: The vehicle starts off of the board. You move the front of the hull from just off of the board 6" for Combat speed. If you moved more than 6" it is cruising speed. 6-12" is cruising speed plain and simple. From the very front to the edge of the board has been specified to be 7" by the OP. Only a single weapon and all defensive weapons should have been able to be fired.

RxGhost wrote:If you do not move onto the table, you are moving off the table. This you are not allowed to do.

ajfirecracker wrote:However, you may not move off the table implies that you may not move your model such that it passes through "off the table" or ends its move "off the table".

False assumptions.
It is not an either or.
Moving partially onto the table is easily shown to be moving onto the table.
Moving partially off of the table requires being (at least partially)on the table, and is still disallowed - explicitely (unless I am missing something there is no debate on this, just flamebait examples).
Also - moving onto the table actually requires moving 'through "off the table"'.

rogueeyes wrote:The RaW is simple: The vehicle starts off of the board. You move the front of the hull from just off of the board 6" for Combat speed. If you moved more than 6" it is cruising speed. 6-12" is cruising speed plain and simple. From the very front to the edge of the board has been specified to be 7" by the OP. Only a single weapon and all defensive weapons should have been able to be fired.

I know, right? It was so simple and staring us in the face the whole time.

Lock this puppy up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is the way I see it, Kirssie-poo. These things are not some bizzare, quasi-real Fee-nom-o-nom. The land raider is a single thing with a definable space...the board in which the game takes place is a single thing with a definable space.

You cannot be ON THE BOARD* and deployed if you are not ON THE BOARD**. If you are not ON THE BOARD*** when you move ON THE BOARD**** from reserve, you have made an illegal move.

* Emphasis mine.
** Also mine.
*** Yep, me again.
**** I don't know who did this one, waddn't me, ya'll.

ajfirecracker wrote:Multi-table game use all sorts of special rules, as do almost all the special missions and campaigns suggested. They're really not a good source to cite for normal games' rules.

I agree with you in general (even though I struggle to find a concrete example of rules changes for multi-table games - table size is not guaranteed), but the question that the examples were used for still stands.
Where does it say table edges break LOS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RxGhost wrote:silliness

Yes, but it does not say "wholly", "entirely", or anysuch. If I move 1" onto the board, I moved onto the board.

RxGhost wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:The RaW is simple: The vehicle starts off of the board. You move the front of the hull from just off of the board 6" for Combat speed. If you moved more than 6" it is cruising speed. 6-12" is cruising speed plain and simple. From the very front to the edge of the board has been specified to be 7" by the OP. Only a single weapon and all defensive weapons should have been able to be fired.

I know, right? It was so simple and staring us in the face the whole time.

Lock this puppy up!

How do you resolve Baneblades or Monoliths then, which cannot move more than 6"? Easy, you leave them "hanging" on the table edge as permitted by the rules.

kirsanth wrote:Also - moving onto the table actually requires moving 'through "off the table"'.

This is why you can infer that moving onto the table clears the restriction that you move through "off the table" (per my above post). It does not allow you to make an additional inference that you may end your move off the table.

WMS FTW LOL



(Used a Heirophant on a rather annoying base too, and had this issue)

Gwar! wrote:How do you resolve Baneblades or Monoliths then, which cannot move more than 6"? Easy, you leave them "hanging" on the table edge as permitted by the rules.

There's no RaW to resolve what happens. No rule allows you to place models off the table, even as part of "moving on". (To be clear, the reserve rules do not say that you put the model just off the edge and move on, they say you measure as if it had been sitting off the board and moved on. No part of this process makes an allowance for the model to be even partially off the board at any point.)

Apples and Oranganas, they are only used in Apocaklypse [sic] so we don't care.

Monoliths can move from regular reserves in regular games, RxGhost.

ajfirecracker wrote:No part of this process makes an allowance for the model to be even partially off the board at any point.

Apart from, you know, the reserve rule which states they begin off the board, but never says they must fully move on, only that they must move on. A Model that is 10% on the Table and 90% Hanging is still on the table (as it is obviously not off the table, otherwise it wouldn't have 10% on the table)

I think any attempts to really find a RAW answer for this are going to have problems. As ArbitorIan pointed out, there are all kinds of potential for abuse if you allow partial roll ons. The existence of Monoliths makes it hard to argue that a landraider must move at cruising speed when arriving from reserve. Missions like Dawn of War that mandate reserves make it less likely that players should just be screwed for having big vehicles in reserve.

I say use the following rule: a player must make a good faith effort to get as much of the vehicle as he can on the board at the speed he wishes to drive at (Battle, cruising, flat out), and any overhang will simply be like an out of coherency squad: dealt with at the next possible opportunity.

There is support for this, as the reserves rules do say that units in reserve are "deployed", not simply brought out for reserve. Deployed units must be within the deployment zone, so there's at least some evidence that they shouldn't be left hanging off the edge.

RxGhost wrote:Apples and Oranganas, they are only used in Apocaklypse [sic] so we don't care.

Monoliths are only used in Apoc? Better break that to the 3 Necron Players in my Area then....

ajfirecracker wrote:Monoliths can move from regular reserves in regular games, RxGhost.

Indeed they can, indeed they can. It's not really too much of an issue though, since the monolith is 6" long and can legally float onto the board.

RxGhost wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Monoliths can move from regular reserves in regular games, RxGhost.

Indeed they can, indeed they can. It's not really too much of an issue though, since the monolith is 6" long and can legally float onto the board.

The monolith is more than 6" long.

I have one right here, I just measured it, it is 6" long.

RxGhost wrote:I have one right here, I just measured it, it is 6" long.

A picture if you do not mind.

Gwar, the reserve rules do not state that the model begins off the board, it says to measure the movement for the model as if it began just off the board.

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the reserve rules do not state that the model begins off the board, it says to measure the movement for the model as if it began just off the board.

Which means that it began off the board... Or did it just magically pop into existence?

It just magically popped into existence, RaW.

(i.e. it was not in the game, then you rolled some reserves and now it is)

There's no rule allowing you to place models even partially off the table.

But there "is" a rule allowing you to place the model partially on the table, meaning you have your permission - you do not need anything additional here.

RxGhost - Monoliths are more than 6" long. Your excellent abilities obviously extend to measuring as well.

What rule, nosferatu? The reserve rule (as I've pointed out multiple times) doesn't say to place the model and move it on. It says that you move on by measuring as if it were just off the table, not that it actually is.

Also, I have my own permission? What?

nosferatu1001 wrote:But there "is" a rule allowing you to place the model partially on the table, meaning you have your permission - you do not need anything additional here.

RxGhost - Monoliths are more than 6" long. Your excellent abilities obviously extend to measuring as well.

You would be right, except you're wrong...again. Also, despite the fact the monolith base is a square, I measured both sets of sides. They were 6", they probably would have been less except the guy I traded it from put it together with a hot glue gun, broke it apart to send to me, then I had to re-glue it.

ajfirecracker wrote:What rule, nosferatu? The reserve rule (as I've pointed out multiple times) doesn't say to place the model and move it on. It says that you move on by measuring as if it were just off the table, not that it actually is.

Also, I have my own permission? What?

Except it states you mvoe on as normal, with the exceptions that you move as if you were just off (not having a defined start position like you do with all other movements)

There is therefore no reason why you can't simply place the tank at the edge and literally move it 5 inches along the playing surface to its final position. At no point have you moved the tank "off" the table as this implies a direction - when you are driving directly onto the table you are not also driving off: no reciprocity here.

I was stating *I* have permission, frmo the reserves rules, to be partially on the table.

I say the practice of allowing a Landraider a partial roll on is a reasonable compromise.

I am not making any rules claims at all.

The rules do not state, nosferatu, that you place the LR on the board edge and move it on as a normal move. It states that you measure as if it were just off the board (the point being that it is not actually just off the board, but in your carrying case/unsupervised game-store kid's slippery hands).

As a result, there's no reason to interpret the rules as granting a special exception such that you may place your models off the board.

BRB page 94 wrote:When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling players own table edge......

Actually, it DOES state you move it on from your table edge. the clarification is to tell you where to measure the moves start point from. The use of "move" can contextually only mean "move as you do normally" as there are no other restrictions / requirements placed on it.

At no point does it say the model cannot be partially on, and the requirement to move "onto" the board does allow for partially on.

RxGhost wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:But there "is" a rule allowing you to place the model partially on the table, meaning you have your permission - you do not need anything additional here.

RxGhost - Monoliths are more than 6" long. Your excellent abilities obviously extend to measuring as well.

You would be right, except you're wrong...again. Also, despite the fact the monolith base is a square, I measured both sets of sides. They were 6", they probably would have been less except the guy I traded it from put it together with a hot glue gun, broke it apart to send to me, then I had to re-glue it.

LOL. try holding the Tape Flat against it rather than trying to use perspective tricks.

Didn't notice that - it isn't even held parallel to the base, but at an angle so the "6" looks like it is over the end.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Didn't notice that - it isn't even held parallel to the base, but at an angle so the "6" looks like it is over the end.

Yup. So, can we agree that a Monolith is slightly longer than 6" and thus RxGhost does not allow them to arrive from reserve?

Hell, he didnt think they could be used outside of apocalypse, so arriving from reserves is the least of his problems.

I could not find the image posted last time, but I did realize I have WAAAY too many pages of YMDC without "skip to unread", so

Is that ruler on the table?

kirsanth wrote:I could not find the image posted last time, but I did realize I have WAAAY too many pages of YMDC without "skip to unread", so

Is that ruler on the table?

Yes. If someone says it is off the table, they do not know what the words "Ruler", "Table" or "On" mean

I love you guys so much and by that I mean it's opposite day.

Even when presented with photographic evidence to the contrary, you're stuck so far up in yourselves that you continue to deny, deny, deny. Because you couldn't ever be wrong, could you?

I'm done with you fools...you return to your world, I'll return to mine.

Actually, if you hold the ruler at an angle the object will appear longer, not shorter. (Shortest distance between two points being a straight line and whatnot)

Edit: For example, you could hold a meter-stick at a very sharp angle and make a monolith look like it's a meter long.

Or even "is"

Waiting for rxGhost to come back and complain that we're all wrong again, without actualy giving any rules or other cogent arguments to support this. It was getting quite funny.

Trig for the win, go back to grade school trolls. Thank you Aj.

Speaking of which, do you know how hard it is to prop up a monolith on a chair with a broken back, while holding a measuring tape and a digital camera?

You don't, because you probably don't even OWN a mollylith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you kidding, I'm having a ball. This has kept our store laughing for the last few hours just waiting to hear what you guys have coming next.

RxGhost wrote:Trig for the win, go back to grade school trolls. Thank you Aj.

Speaking of which, do you know how hard it is to prop up a monolith on a chair with a broken back, while holding a measuring tape and a digital camera?

You don't, because you probably don't even OWN a mollylith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you kidding, I'm having a ball. This has kept our store laughing for the last few hours just waiting to hear what you guys have coming next.

So wait, you are in a Store with a Broken back?
Methinks the Lady doth tell the Porkie Pies.

RxGhost wrote:Trig for the win, go back to grade school trolls. Thank you Aj.

Speaking of which, do you know how hard it is to prop up a monolith on a chair with a broken back, while holding a measuring tape and a digital camera?

You don't, because you probably don't even OWN a mollylith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you kidding, I'm having a ball. This has kept our store laughing for the last few hours just waiting to hear what you guys have coming next.

Now now, be nice. No name calling.

It is not like this is the first time this issue has come up. Last time I think I started on the other side of this debate however. It took someone quoting rules "backing up" YOUR side of this that made me change my mind.

Ah right, the people who have provided rules quotes and clearly defined arguments are the trolls? Interesting definition you have there.

BTW being English we don't have "grade" schools, however I guess you were attempting to be insulting here - and being slightly more effective than your arguments have been so far, which is something.

Difficulty in taking the picture doesnt alter that the picture is misleading - deliberately or not it is irrelevant. Last time I measured (around the last time this came up) i seem to recall it was 6.2" on a side.

Oh, NOW we've got a 'no name calling, *tsk**tsk*'. Where were you when my honor besmirched?

Do you know how hard it is to unsmirch honor?

Nos: Pics or GTFO.

Ah sorry, didnt realise this was your thread.

Also no need to put pictures up: it doesnt alter that you have utterly failed to give a cogent argument.

Oh, I see. I give proof when proof is demanded, you continue to talk out of your...typing hole? and give no proof other than: "I said it's this, so it's this way."

You use this word cogent, and argument...I do not think they mean what YOU think they mean. Give it up red, you can't beat that squirtle with a fire type...time to burn out and fade away.

EDIT: BRB Smokes

What proof? Where is your "proof" that partially onto doesnt satisfy "onto"? You've yet to give any, thats why.

The closest you got was below:

RxGhost wrote:I know Aj, that's my point of contention as well. If you deploy in that manner (not fully on the table) then you are not playing by the rules. You have not deployed the unit legally as per the rules allow and you have not made a legal move.

Since there is no condition in the entire ruleset that I have ever seen or read that allows this kind of 'deployment' (and remember, we're looking for rules that ALLOW things here) I'm sticking with my reading, that you cannot deploy less than 100% of your unit...and I'm not adding things by ommission either.

And let's not forget that it is within the Land Raider's ability to move fully onto the table, you just might not be able to squeeze as many shots out of it as you'd like.

Which is mainly a load of assertions that don't actually prove anything: you have asserted that "I'm sticking with my reading, that you cannot deploy less than 100%...." despite not actually having a rule to show that.

So: is "onto" less restrictive than "fully onto"? Can "partially on(to)" not satisfy "onto" given that the English language says it does?

Regardless of start position, a model may not be moved off the table. I think that much is clear and not argued.

If we assume that partially on = on, then we must also conclude that partially off = off. Moving onto the board from reserves still counts as moving, and you may not move in such a way to be off the board. Since partially off = off, a model must move entirely onto the board from reserves.

Interpreting that partially on = on forces this additional interpretation, thus ultimately showing that a model must be moved fully on by RAW.

edit: Basically what I'm saying is that you need to satisfy both requirements of not being off the board and the requirement of being on the board. Since the two terms are mutually exclusive, you must be entirely on.

General Mayhem wrote:Just played (and lost) a game where my opponent moved his landraider onto the board from reserves. He claimed it was only a six inch move so fired all his guns. I claimed the move should be at least seven inches, because of the landraiders length, and he should only fire one (non defensive) weapon. We played it his way (he whinges more than I do) but what do you think?

if it moved six inches it moved six inches. I do not see how something that moves six inches could have moved seven inches because of it's length. If something five feet long moves one foot, does it move any further than something three feet long that moves one foot?




EDIT- So yes he can fire all weapons.



-Orkishly

orkishlyorkish: The model moved 7" but wanted to claim it as 6", which is clearly not allowed. The debate is now about whether he could instead have moved 6" with the LR hanging off the board.

I have personally had to bring in my own LR from reserve and can say with 100% certainty that the bottom of the model is all on the table. The only part off is a small bit of the overhanging slant on the tracks but no part of the bottom of the LR is over the edge.



EDIT- Unless of course if any small part that may be suspended in the air, is over the table edge is an illegal move. If this is the case I am sorry for missunderstanding the rules


-Orkishly

Good point - is it okay to have, e.g. a hive tyrant, where the base is entirely on the board but an arm or weapon is hanging off?

Or how about a tank where the tracks are on the board but a sponson is hanging off?

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Trig for the win, go back to grade school trolls. Thank you Aj.

Speaking of which, do you know how hard it is to prop up a monolith on a chair with a broken back, while holding a measuring tape and a digital camera?

You don't, because you probably don't even OWN a mollylith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you kidding, I'm having a ball. This has kept our store laughing for the last few hours just waiting to hear what you guys have coming next.

So wait, you are in a Store with a Broken back?
Methinks the Lady doth tell the Porkie Pies.

The back of the chair was broken. My back is fine, thanks for asking; had to unblock you for this topic since I thought you might contribute something worth reading but nope...back on the ignore list you go.

FAQ wrote: Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or mission being played clearly specifies that they can. All good wargamers know the edge of the table is the end of the world!

Faq clears this one up guys. According to your argument partially on = on, and as I said above that this means you would also have to read partially off = off.
If you move, and you are off the table (partially off = off), then you are playing against the FAQ. Reserves counts as movement, so you are limited by this ruling in the FAQ.

To follow movement rules anything you consider part of the model for measuring movement purposes would need to be on the table. For other models their entire base must be on the table.

Except partially "on" satisfies the condition for being "on", but it does not also mean it is "off" - there is no reciprocity here!

Also you are nto allowed to move the model off the table - however you are not, you are moving the model onto the table. Again, direction is important here: you are explicitly NOT moving off the table as you are following the rule and moving "on". Explain how your MOVE is "off" in this instance, even if the final position is partially off? You are removing the word "move" and replacing it with "positioned" which is incorrect.

It is false to claim that here "partially off" is the same as "off" - it is demonstrably not "off" the table if it is fully suported by the table, is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RxGhost - by putting Gwar! on ignore you will miss out on a very good rules head. You should perhaps have not posted misleading photos trying to prove your "point" if you didnt want to have some rise taken out of you.

Listen to yourself man, this is crazy talk! You can't even decide which is off or on here. Just put it to bed for today and we can pick up tomorrow around 4 EST when I clock back in at work.

Seriously though, you're trying to reinvent a language just so some guy can shoot a little more pewpew which he could have done anyway if he'd have moved onto the table a little differently...you know, and legally within the rules and stuff.

Oh, he's been on ignore for a long time. And you can deny the legitimacy of those photos all you want, but they're the real deal, [Abby] McBeal.

Though I do appreciate the irony of you arguing against reality via mah photos in the same way you argue against reality in your *ahem* interpretations. I'm sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted or were expecting, but that's how it works in the really-real world.

edit: @ nos We are going to have to agree to disagree here.

You said counting partially on = on is correct, and that is the exact SAME as counting partially off = off. You are stating that because part of the object fulfills the criteria it extends and is true for the whole object. You can't arbitrarily limit this to the state of "on" and not "off".

You still have to move your model in such a way that you are following standard movement rules, and in addition according to the Reserve rules you must move onto the table from the edge as if you were at the edge of the table. No where does that give you permission to violate the FAQ stating that you may not move off the table.

You can't move in such a way as to be off the table, regardless position. The FAQ makes it clear a specific statement is needed to be able to be off the table (as you put it previously, even a single atom is still off).

Hmm, having a further reqording to try to make myself a little clearer: You cannot *move* "off" the table, however in this instance you are not doing so - here "moving off" in context gives a direction of travel: you are moving off the table from a position on the table.

For reserves you are doing the opposite: place the model at the edge of the table and begin moving it "onto" the table. If you stop and are still partially "off" you have not violated the rule - you have not moved off, you are *still* "off". Semantically these are very different.

RxGhost: apparently me not being in the US didnt stick. I did go to bed....its now 11am BST.

In addition your "photos" show that the tape was held at an angle up from the surface and at an angle to the line at the base of the monolith: both of those result in an apparent foreshortening of the model making it seem shorter than it really is. So we were arguing the accuracy of your photos: that you are so defensive about it (rather than trying again) doesnt help with the veracity of your claims.

You also ignore that your invalid interpretation doesnt let baneblades move onto the table - or monoliths, as they are roughly 6.2". The "motives" behind the reading of the rules is not relevant here - you are simply unable to proffer an actual argument for your side.

I wasn't expecting an "answer" from you, just some form of actual argument. As you seem incapable of doing that I don't really have any interest in continuing this - I suggest you go back to your "really real" and diespense with the thread.

And on that funfilled note this thread is closed.

Arguments on both sides have been made and flaming is starting.