29747
Post by: WylieX
Just put it this way...
When you were a kid and your dad said "Don't step on my grass" and you put one foot in and left one foot out, and when your dad proceeded to pull his belt off you said "I was only partially on, so I was technically off", would he let you go or probably beat you harder for having a smart mouth? I'm just saying...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Please for the love of god stop saying partially on is on because partially on is also OFF!!! For the hundreth time seriously that is not a valid arguement because I can show you where it is off the table.
Furthermore you break more rules of the game by having it partially off the table because you cannot measure to or from certain parts of the vehicle.
It is 100% NOT OFF THE TABLE if it is partially on.
If 1% of you is on fire you are on fire, despite being only partially on fire
If 1% of you is on fire you are most definitely NOT "not on fire"
You are assuming commutativity when this is not true at all. Stop repeating it as if it were.
You have been repeatedly shown that you can be "on" the table. That is all that is required. Stop making up additional rules, and you may have an argument.
32163
Post by: Cayar
My 2c.:
As long as we're using real-world logic:
p. 67, Disembarking, paragraph 1:
p. 67, Effects of Vehicle Damage on Passengers: Destroyed: wrecked: "...Any models that cannot disembark (as in placed on the table) are destroyed."
p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..."
p. 92, Pitched Battle: "...He then deploys his forces in his half of the table..."
p. 93, Spearhead: "...He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters..."
p. 93, Dawn of War: "...He then can deploy...in his half of the table..."
p. 95, Deep strike mishaps: "...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table... something has gone wrong... roll on the deep strike Mishap table..." (You cannot land a deepstriking model off the table at all.)
(Emphasis mine in all instances, parenthetic phrases are my interpretations.)
It is clear then, that if a model that should be in play cannot be placed completely on the gaming surface, it is destroyed, and that a model must be completely within the borders of the gaming surface to be in play . While this is not explicitly stated in the case of arriving from reserves, it is implied. This is because every other way of getting models onto the board contains a requirement to be in play, having no part out of play. It is ridiculous to assume that you can partially move onto the board in this one instance when there is no explicit statement that you may, and when it is disallowed in every other way of getting models onto the board.
Also, because this is a permissive ruleset, if it doesn't say that you can't, that does Not mean that you can. This means, that because the BGB does not explicitly say that you can deploy models from reserve that straddle the board edge, you may not.
And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Cayar wrote:And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.
Missing it, maybe, but not for trying to use it. "p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..." By your logic in forcing this to apply, all models that move on from reserves without Deepstriking (and then it's debatable) are destroyed--as they MUST move "into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge". So yes. It was covered.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Cayar wrote:My 2c.:
As long as we're using real-world logic:
p. 67, Disembarking, paragraph 1:
p. 67, Effects of Vehicle Damage on Passengers: Destroyed: wrecked: "...Any models that cannot disembark (as in placed on the table) are destroyed."
This isnt disembark. And we CAN place them on the table. Next
Cayar wrote:p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..."
Wow, who;d have thought this would have come up after 10 pages. For the 20th time this is NOT falling back, and models are only destroyed because the rules say so.
Logical fallacy. Next.
Cayar wrote:p. 92, Pitched Battle: "...He then deploys his forces in his half of the table..."
In /= on
Next
Cayar wrote:p. 93, Spearhead: "...He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters..."
p. 93, Dawn of War: "...He then can deploy...in his half of the table..."
See above. next
Cayar wrote:p. 95, Deep strike mishaps: "...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table... something has gone wrong... roll on the deep strike Mishap table..." (You cannot land a deepstriking model off the table at all.)
(Emphasis mine in all instances, parenthetic phrases are my interpretations.)
again, special rule for deepstrikes, and only occurs BECAUSE THE DEEPSTRIKE RULES SAY SO.
Cayar wrote:It is clear then, that if a model that should be in play cannot be placed completely on the gaming surface, it is destroyed,
and here is where you go completely and 110% wrong. You have, like every other partially on == destroyed poster, got nothing in the rules to say this. You are, in fact, breaking rules by arbitrarily destroying models.
And mishaps only destroy 1/3rd of the time. So you are deciding to make up rules AND taking the harshest possible way to make up rules.
Cayar wrote:and that a model must be completely within the borders of the gaming surface to be in play . While this is not explicitly stated in the case of arriving from reserves, it is implied. This is because every other way of getting models onto the board contains a requirement to be in play, having no part out of play. It is ridiculous to assume that you can partially move onto the board in this one instance when there is no explicit statement that you may, and when it is disallowed in every other way of getting models onto the board.
Except your quotes do not say that. In fact, they say nothing of the sort. So it, in fact, is rediculous to make the conclusion you have done.
Cayar wrote:Also, because this is a permissive ruleset, if it doesn't say that you can't, that does Not mean that you can. This means, that because the BGB does not explicitly say that you can deploy models from reserve that straddle the board edge, you may not.
Incorrect. You are looking for explicit permission to do X, when general permission Y, which includes X, is given (on not being qualified at all)
Your "logic" here results in you being unable to deploy models in a wood, as there is no explicit permission to deploy models in woods. There is general permission to deploy anywhere IN your half (remember, In /= ON!), but according to your fallacious logic this is not sufficient.
Which is moronic.
Cayar wrote:And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.
Well, if quoting out of context, ignring words (bad in a rules debate, you know) and commiting logical fallacies to try to "prove" your point counts as "using" logic - well, you can guess what happens.
32163
Post by: Cayar
I am not forcing it to apply; I am suggesting that others use it.
I was not making the point that it should apply in the case of arriving from reserves. I was making the point that it applies in a very similar case, one in which all models must be completely on the board in order to be whole and undestroyed.
Even if I was making that point, it's obvious that models are able to move from reserves to a position in the game environment without a problem.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Cayar wrote:
it's obvious that models are able to move from reserves to a position in the game environment without a problem.
This is actually not obvious, or even always correct. Also, it was brought up previously.
32163
Post by: Cayar
nosferatu1001 wrote:
This isnt disembark. And we CAN place them on the table. Next
That was my point.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cayar wrote:p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..."
Wow, who;d have thought this would have come up after 10 pages. For the 20th time this is NOT falling back, and models are only destroyed because the rules say so.
Logical fallacy. Next.
As I said, I was not meaning for that rule to apply where it was not said to. My point was that the two cases are similar, and should be considered in light of each other.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cayar wrote:p. 92, Pitched Battle: "...He then deploys his forces in his half of the table..."
p. 93, Spearhead: "...He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters..."
p. 93, Dawn of War: "...He then can deploy...in his half of the table..."
In /= on
Next
I agree. When you deploy, your forces must be 'in' your deployment zone. Meaning, no part of them may be 'out' of the zone.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cayar wrote:p. 95, Deep strike mishaps: "...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table... something has gone wrong... roll on the deep strike Mishap table..." (You cannot land a deepstriking model off the table at all.)
(Emphasis mine in all instances, parenthetic phrases are my interpretations.)
again, special rule for deepstrikes, and only occurs BECAUSE THE DEEPSTRIKE RULES SAY SO.
I agree. Like the above, I was using it as an example of similar circumstances.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cayar wrote:It is clear then, that if a model that should be in play cannot be placed completely on the gaming surface, it is destroyed,
and here is where you go completely and 110% wrong. You have, like every other partially on == destroyed poster, got nothing in the rules to say this.
This was a generalization. It is definitely true for most, and probably all, of the instances in which it could happen. The reason I said it was that,
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cayar wrote:and that a model must be completely within the borders of the gaming surface to be in play . While this is not explicitly stated in the case of arriving from reserves, it is implied. This is because every other way of getting models onto the board contains a requirement to be in play, having no part out of play. It is ridiculous to assume that you can partially move onto the board in this one instance when there is no explicit statement that you may, and when it is disallowed in every other way of getting models onto the board.
Except your quotes do not say that. In fact, they say nothing of the sort. So it, in fact, is rediculous to make the conclusion you have done.
You fail at reading references. Each instance was chosen precisely because it said that.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cayar wrote:And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.
Well, if quoting out of context, ignring words (bad in a rules debate, you know) and commiting logical fallacies to try to "prove" your point counts as "using" logic - well, you can guess what happens.
I made no error. The quotes did not apply to models coming in from reserve (except for the deepstrike rule), they were examples of when being off the table at any point is not allowed. I committed no fallacies; however, I apparently did not explain myself very well. I know (and knew) that those rules did not apply to this, I only wanted them to be considered.
And if you think that you're so righteously right that you will throw my words out the window and insult me after a cursory read at best, you are too hotheaded and opinionated to be here. Go cool down. Please. Automatically Appended Next Post: kirsanth wrote:This is actually not obvious, or even always correct. Also, it was brought up previously.
Where? When? Why? Back this up please.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Cayar wrote:The quotes did not apply to models coming in from reserve (except for the deepstrike rule), they were examples of when being off the table at any point is not allowed.
Which is why they have no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand.
Cayar wrote:Where? When? Why? Back this up please.
He has been. The whole thread. Do you not read threads before you post in them?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
You committed the logical fallacy of assuming that a rule for moving OFF the board has any bearing on a rule for moving ON the board.
Assumption is also a fallacy, and you made a huge assumptive leap in deciding elements are destroyed.
You fail at reading because IN has no relation to ON. They are two words with very, very, very different meanings, especially in this context.
None of your arguments are new, none of your quotes are new, and all have been repeatedly refuted at least two or three times in this thread. Did you actually read all 11 pages, or did you just post a load of quotes and assume you were right?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Cayar wrote:When you deploy, your forces must be 'in' your deployment zone. Meaning, no part of them may be 'out' of the zone.
Page reference?
No one else has found one when (repeatedly) posting this "rule".
The ruler is on the table. If the visible table edge is my deployment zone, that ruler is in my deployment zone.
"Entirely" is not in the rules.
See unit coherency, (dis)embarking, synapse, etc.
If part of the model is in range, the model is in range.
Why use Deepstrike rules or a FAQ query about moving off the board instead of all the rest of the rules saying that partially in range/sight = in range/sight.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:SaintHazard wrote:KP - actually the gaming surface again only requires models to be "on" the surface. Partially on still, 100%, satisfies this requirement.
You have consistently been unable to show a requirement to be "fully" on, either the playing surface or as part of the reserves rules. As such you follow the only rules you DO have: the model is perfectly, 100% able to be deplpyed OR move on from reserves partially onto the table. It functions exactly 100% as normal.
And done.
Please quote the rule that states the models must be "in" the playing area.
They need to be on it, not in it.
If they're partially on it, they're on it.
That's the point.
It's legal.
They must be on the playing surface. agreed?
If they are off the playing surface this would break the rule of being on the playing surface.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Deathreaper - we're still waiting for some actual proof Neither mathematically are linguistically does your point hold water. You appear to believe in commutative rules when that is a horrible logical fallacy, and so on.
Troll seems about right.
Gorkamorka - I'm done here, there is no arguing with those who refuse to see their failings. Have fun with them! 
Here is your proof:
On does not mean off. If i can point to a part of the base that is off the playing surface, then you have broken a rule about being on the playing surface. If we can not agree that on does not mean off then I think that is where the confusion is coming from.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Quit misquoting us.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except they are NOT off.
They are on
For the 100th time: while being partially on satisfies "on", the converse is not true for off. You cannot be "off" the table if you are "on" the table, because language doesnt work like that.
Please try again.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
nosferatu1001 wrote:Please try again.
 that.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
SaintHazard wrote:Quit misquoting us.
how did i misquote you?
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they are NOT off.
They are on
For the 100th time: while being partially on satisfies "on", the converse is not true for off. You cannot be "off" the table if you are "on" the table, because language doesnt work like that.
Please try again.
so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table?
half a glass of milk is half full not half empty it seems.
Half on and half off are one in the same.
kirsanth wrote:Cayar wrote:When you deploy, your forces must be 'in' your deployment zone. Meaning, no part of them may be 'out' of the zone.
Page reference?
No one else has found one when (repeatedly) posting this "rule".
The ruler is on the table. If the visible table edge is my deployment zone, that ruler is in my deployment zone.
"Entirely" is not in the rules.
See unit coherency, (dis)embarking, synapse, etc.
If part of the model is in range, the model is in range.
Why use Deepstrike rules or a FAQ query about moving off the board instead of all the rest of the rules saying that partially in range/sight = in range/sight.
P.92 Read pitched battle about deploying in his half of the table.
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper wrote:so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table?
half a glass of milk is half full not half empty it seems.
Half on and half off are one in the same.
Ok look at it this way you are hanging over a cliff are you holding on to the cliff or not?
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
DeathReaper wrote:how did i misquote you?
You're mismatching names with quotes. I said what you said Nos said. I have no idea who said what you said I said.
Learn to use forum quotes properly. It's not hard.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Deathreaper - partially on /= off\
Two entirely different words. Again, you are commiting a linquistic error here, to whit you dont understand the difference between on and off. May be worth you actually reading the examples showing you how you are wrong, it might be a good start.
Please try again once you understand the difference between on, off, full and empty.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they are NOT off.
They are on
For the 100th time: while being partially on satisfies "on", the converse is not true for off. You cannot be "off" the table if you are "on" the table, because language doesnt work like that.
Please try again.
Here you are making a fallacious argument which is the compostions fallcy. You are assuming that the whole is on based on a part. Therefore you assumption is right. You have no back up as to say that partially on is on. Show me in the BRB where it says this. Please do it.
Addtionally and again, permissive rule set. Show me where partially on is on.
Furthermore, you have a defined table, you have a defined area of play, if you go outside that area then you are not on it, or in it.
I also want to anwser a problem with WMS, WMS only deals with models in terrain, the board edge is not terrain. WMS has nothing to do with this problem of being partially on and is it in play or not, and is it allowed to do such a thing.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: You are assuming that the whole is on based on a part.
You assume that the whole is mentioned. It is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Was your wife on the car?
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper+ corrections wrote:so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table? Who care if it is off?
half a glass of milk is half full not half empty it seems. No it is half empty but the point is that is not Empty. If i asked for a glass of water i can be given a full glass, a half full glass, a half empty glass or even a nearlly empty glass. That is beacuse all of those are glasses of water with variable amounts in them.
Half on and half off are one in the same. Yes but no rules care if you are off
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote: You are assuming that the whole is on based on a part.
You assume that the whole is mentioned. It is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Was your wife on the car?
No but it is implied in the game when you move the unit/model onto the table. See it doesn't say a part of the unit/model. It says unit/model. Now are we talking about parts of models or model as a whole?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.
Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.
Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.
By pointing to page 88 and the area of play. That is what gives us the ability to determine what is on and off the playing sufrace.
6769
Post by: Tri
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.
Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.
By pointing to page 88 and the area of play. That is what gives us the ability to determine what is on and off the playing sufrace.
the what now? I have Gaming Surface, Setting Up Terrain, How Much Terrain and Define the Terrain but importantly no mention of "Area of Play"
32163
Post by: Cayar
AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHHhhhh...
@SaintHazard: 1. Thank you for being civil...ish.
2. I thought they were relevant, as they are similar. Isn't it reasonable to consider that similar situations could have similar rules? For heaven's sake, I admitted that they didn't apply. Do you have to rub it in?
3. I thought that I had a good understanding of the topics covered. I admit that I did not read everything posted. Should I have? Should I have wasted an hour of my life in order to put forward my opinion on the subject?
@nosferatu: I am allowed to revise my position, am I not? Did I not say that those rules do not directly apply? May my opinion be dynamic? Will you continue to antagonize me because my original opinion was not in line with yours? Please see above, #2.
@kirsanth: Thank you for being civil. As for your examples:
1. (Ruler on table): Um, I see multiple interpretations. Could you clarify this?
2. (Entirely): If you meant this literally, I'm not going to touch this before you cite. However, I agree that there is no 'entirely' in this case.
3. Unit coherency, range, and the rest have no bearing on this. (I know, coming from me, right?)
4. At no point did I use anything from an FAQ. And I didn't use those rules because, imo, they are dissimilar to the topic at hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@kirsanth: I take back my thanks for your non-existent civility.
6769
Post by: Tri
Cayar wrote:@kirsanth: Thank you for being civil. As for your examples:
1. (Ruler on table): Um, I see multiple interpretations. Could you clarify this?
way back on page 1 .... kirsanth wrote: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.
32163
Post by: Cayar
@ Tri: Oh. Right. d'oh
I see your side's point. (I think.) That reserves can be moved 'onto' the board, and can be in play though they have not completely crossed the board edge.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
SaintHazard wrote:1) We can agree that when a vehicle is on the table, it's legal. Please show me the rule that states that part of a vehicle off the table is illegal.
2) Nothing in the rulebook says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. When you measure movement, you measure "from the hull." It's not specific as to where. When you measure range for shooting, you measure from the weapon - you can easily choose not to shoot with a weapon from which you cannot measure range. When you measure shooting AT a vehicle, you measure to the hull. Again, it is not specific as to where. None of these scenarios are in any way hampered by an inability to measure to a portion of the vehicle.
Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
There is plenty in the rulebook that says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. Range is measured from the hull. Pivoting is measured from the centre of the hull. LoS is measured from the gun muzzle. Arc of fire is measured from the mounting point. Assault distance is measured to the base. The facing of vehicles is crucial for determining armour value. Vehicles can get a cover save from 50% terrain coverage -- how can you measure 50% if the vehicle is mostly off the table?
32163
Post by: Cayar
I'm just wondering: would you, or any tournament, actually play like that? :  :
I'm fine with this on 3 conditions.
First, that any model only partially on the board also be considered partially in reserve, since the other part must be somewhere and that it cannot be partially in oblivion.
This means that;
Second, that any parts of the models in question beyond the board edge can do nothing, i.e. no shooting guns that are past the edge, because you may not shoot with anything that is in reserve.
Third, since the first paragraph of 'Arriving from reserve' (p.94) says that "it is incorrect to place a model on the board touching the edge and then move it", that any such model may not be moved. This overlaps a little with my second point.
Other than that, I am fine with your point, as there is nothing in the rules to prevent you, though in many similar cases this is completely illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: However, I would think that a model may only be partially on board if the model can balance by itself. Since no one can stay completely still, one would be illegally moving the model(s) if one kept them balanced during any turn that is not one's movement phase.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You are, in fact, breaking rules by arbitrarily destroying models.
I would rather (not risk a literally broken model) than (play as you suggest).
I'm leaving now, going back to the world of the sane.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.
Partially on is still on.
Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.
Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.
By pointing to page 88 and the area of play. That is what gives us the ability to determine what is on and off the playing sufrace.
Doesnt actually state the words "area of play", and places no requirements on models being entirely within that area in any case - it uses the word on, repeatedly.
In fact because it uses "on" the exact same argument still holds. I think this was covered on page 6, so repeatedly bringing up the same refuted point doesnt really jelp....
Cayer - yes, you should have read the thread. To do otherwise is the equivalent of walking into an ongoing debate, shouting out refuted arguments from 2 days ago and looking smug while everyone wonders what you are doing there. In short, it lacks any form of courtesy and civility.
In other words you were the antagonist first.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.
And again fallacous reasoning.
It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.
32163
Post by: Cayar
Cayer - yes, you should have read the thread. To do otherwise is the equivalent of walking into an ongoing debate, shouting out refuted arguments from 2 days ago and looking smug while everyone wonders what you are doing there. In short, it lacks any form of courtesy and civility.
In other words you were the antagonist first.
I was not. I stated my argument with dignity and even temper. It may not have been courteous to bring it up again, but it was polite in manner and language, so far as I know. You're done criticizing my ideas; don't criticize me for having them, especially if I'm willing to change them to suit yours.
6769
Post by: Tri
Kilkrazy wrote:SaintHazard wrote:1) We can agree that when a vehicle is on the table, it's legal. Please show me the rule that states that part of a vehicle off the table is illegal.
2) Nothing in the rulebook says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. When you measure movement, you measure "from the hull." It's not specific as to where. When you measure range for shooting, you measure from the weapon - you can easily choose not to shoot with a weapon from which you cannot measure range. When you measure shooting AT a vehicle, you measure to the hull. Again, it is not specific as to where. None of these scenarios are in any way hampered by an inability to measure to a portion of the vehicle.
Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table? There is plenty in the rulebook that says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. Range is measured from the hull. Pivoting is measured from the centre of the hull. LoS is measured from the gun muzzle. Arc of fire is measured from the mounting point. Assault distance is measured to the base. The facing of vehicles is crucial for determining armour value. Vehicles can get a cover save from 50% terrain coverage -- how can you measure 50% if the vehicle is mostly off the table?
Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table? Well nothing says they must be on the table. If they must be on the table then you can't have things in reserve since they're all off the table. As for measuring it is there just measure to the thing (using WMS rules you place and hold it so you can measure) (note WMS (wobbly model syndrome) can be found on page 13)
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.
Partially on is still on.
Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.
Whilst I disagree with that, assuming it the sake of the argument, are you happy to play with all the complications I have pointed out?
How do you think it will work in practice?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.
And again fallacous reasoning.
It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.
There is nothing stating you can deploy in woods, yet you can do so.
Again, and for the final time: the English language allows you to satisfy they requirement to move "onto" by moving partially on(to). This is how language works, is non fallacious, and follows the time honoured tradition of permission to do general X allows you to do specific action Y which is a subset of X
moving partially on is a part of moving on, same as deploying in woods (in your half) is a part of deploying anywhere in your half. Your argument is that youc annot deploy in woods, which is incorrect.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.
Partially on is still on.
Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.
Whilst I disagree with that, assuming it the sake of the argument, are you happy to play with all the complications I have pointed out?
How do you think it will work in practice?
What complications? Having a mm on the table and the rest off? That's not a complication, that's what the rules say.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Cayar wrote:@kirsanth: Thank you for being civil. As for your examples:
1. (Ruler on table): Um, I see multiple interpretations. Could you clarify this?
2. (Entirely): If you meant this literally, I'm not going to touch this before you cite. However, I agree that there is no 'entirely' in this case.
3. Unit coherency, range, and the rest have no bearing on this. (I know, coming from me, right?)
4. At no point did I use anything from an FAQ. And I didn't use those rules because, imo, they are dissimilar to the topic at hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@kirsanth: I take back my thanks for your non-existent civility.
1. If it is not on the table, what is holding it up? "Partially" and "Fully" are not in the question any more than they are in the rules. 2. Exactly. 3. Then neither do Deepstrike Mishaps, Moving OFF of the table, Falling Back, the Area of play, nor any other set of rules that relate. 4. The FAQ is the part that states that edge of the board is edge of the world and it is disallowed movement. As for civility. . .if you say so, I am civil enough to read everyone's responses in the whole thread before posting. I even tried to find a new example instead of regugitating things people still disagre with. Regardless, if you think I am implying it was your wife, I would civilly suggest a break from the internet for a bit? 
6769
Post by: Tri
Kilkrazy wrote:Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.
Partially on is still on.
Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.
Whilst I disagree with that, assuming it the sake of the argument, are you happy to play with all the complications I have pointed out?
How do you think it will work in practice?
You mark were the model is then you place the model safely on the table. When you need to measure from or to the model repace it and hold while the measurement is taken. Then place the mode back safely on the board.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
Where do you measure a unit's location to?
Specifically.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Kilkrazy wrote:SaintHazard wrote:1) We can agree that when a vehicle is on the table, it's legal. Please show me the rule that states that part of a vehicle off the table is illegal.
2) Nothing in the rulebook says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. When you measure movement, you measure "from the hull." It's not specific as to where. When you measure range for shooting, you measure from the weapon - you can easily choose not to shoot with a weapon from which you cannot measure range. When you measure shooting AT a vehicle, you measure to the hull. Again, it is not specific as to where. None of these scenarios are in any way hampered by an inability to measure to a portion of the vehicle.
Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
There is plenty in the rulebook that says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. Range is measured from the hull. Pivoting is measured from the centre of the hull. LoS is measured from the gun muzzle. Arc of fire is measured from the mounting point. Assault distance is measured to the base. The facing of vehicles is crucial for determining armour value. Vehicles can get a cover save from 50% terrain coverage -- how can you measure 50% if the vehicle is mostly off the table?
If you'll actually read my posts instead of conveniently ignoring everything but the part that you can use to try to refute my points...
1) I already addressed weapons. You fire the ones from which you can measure range. Can't measure range? Can't fire.
2) I already addressed facings. Can't hit rear armor? Great, you couldn't even if it was ON the table, since you can't fire from OFF the table.
3) I didn't address cover, but that couldn't be simpler. Is 50% of the vehicle in cover? More than 50% of the vehicle is off the table, therefore more than 50% of the vehicle is "not in cover." No cover save can be claimed.
Everything else I already addressed.
28090
Post by: liam0404
Yes but doesn't the difficult terrain test for vehicles say that if the test is failed, the vehicle stops outside the terrain (I.e off the table in this case)?
Arghh ignore this, stupid phone. ...
Oh, page 94 reserves clearly specifies that the unit can move on up to its maximum movement. Seems clear that that can mean as much or as little of the model as desired.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Which, if you go back to oooh page 2, was pointed out and I believe I said this ISNT covered in the rules - however destroying the vehicle certainly is NOT in the rules, and seems harsh.
Simply not placing terrain over the edge (the only practical way for it to be exactly flush to the edge) seems the easiest way to resolve this. Then you will, at worst, simply place the tank on the edge of the table.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
nosferatu1001 wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.
And again fallacous reasoning.
It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.
There is nothing stating you can deploy in woods, yet you can do so.
Actually deploying has nothing to do with this (red haring) fallacous arguement.
Again, and for the final time: the English language allows you to satisfy they requirement to move "onto" by moving partially on(to). This is how language works, is non fallacious, and follows the time honoured tradition of permission to do general X allows you to do specific action Y which is a subset of X
We are not talking about what the english language allows we are talking about what the rules allow.
moving partially on is a part of moving on, same as deploying in woods (in your half) is a part of deploying anywhere in your half. Your argument is that youc annot deploy in woods, which is incorrect.
Since it is your argument about not being able to deploy in woods and not mine I will thank you not to contribute that to me. Secondly, I have on many occasions tried to discuss this in a polite manner, and not infered on many occasions what you might be saying. I can not say the same for you. You repeatedly attack a person and thier comprihenson of many things and yet that in of itself is also fallacous.(and if I am not mistaken against the forum rules.
You are determining rules based on what is implied from you understanding, we have gone from RAW to RAI in this case. At that point there is no discussing anything with you as you have set your mind to being right to all other exclusions. Addtionaly, I thought you were done two pages ago. Have a nice day!
P.S. I can also point out fallacous arguments!
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.
Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.
Tri wrote:DeathReaper+ corrections wrote:so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table? Who care if it is off?
half a glass of milk is half full not half empty it seems. No it is half empty but the point is that is not Empty. If i asked for a glass of water i can be given a full glass, a half full glass, a half empty glass or even a nearlly empty glass. That is beacuse all of those are glasses of water with variable amounts in them.
Half on and half off are one in the same. Yes but no rules care if you are off
Here is your rules citation nos.
The rule that states games are played ON the 6' by 4' table. It says you have to be on the table, and not off the table, tyvm.
This states you need to be on, not partially on. On in this reference is inclusive of the whole base/model.
you are allowed to be on the table, no rules state you can be partially on/off the table.
and please stop with the on fire not on fire/hanging on a cliff/half on and half off a car, they are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:kirsanth wrote:Was your wife on the car?
No . . .
Quaint. That is why the image has a title. Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Now are we talking about parts of models or model as a whole?
Glad you finally noticed the issue. The rules do not specify; only the people saying the models have to be 100% on the table are doing that.
Then they are ALSO adding a rule saying the vehicle is destroyed for not complying with a rule that is not written.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:kirsanth wrote:Was your wife on the car?
No . . .
Quaint. That is why the image has a title. Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Now are we talking about parts of models or model as a whole?
Glad you finally noticed the issue. The rules do not specify; only the people saying the models have to be 100% on the table are doing that.
Then they are ALSO adding a rule saying the vehicle is destroyed for not complying with a rule that is not written.
Actually it is the people who are saying that only a part of the model needs to be on the playing area they were the first one's iirc. At this point I would like to point out that on multiple occasions I have stated I am not for it being destroyed. I have said it is not a valid area for it to be on/in therefore it is not a a part of the game legally. You play with whole models, unless agreed upon before hand. As for having a defined area of play it is in the first sentence of that paragraph, the game is designed to be played on a 6x4 foot area. See there that tells you where the playing area ends. If it is 6 feet 1 inch, that is not in the playing area, if it was 4 feet 5 inches, not in the playing area.
Cheers!
32765
Post by: Ordo Dakka
The fact is the book says it can be on the table without specifying that it can't be partially on the table. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the naysayers assuming a vehicle is destroyed in this situation to provide a rules excerpt. As they have been unable to do so thus far I think we can assume RAW the tank is fine partially on the table. Anything else is spirit of the game.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
@K-P: So by your logic models in reserves can never come on... classy.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
Gwar! wrote:@K-P: So by your logic models in reserves can never come on... classy.
No, again I did not say that. Niether is that what I am thinking................. 
They have the rules there saying specific instances where it is allowed. Seeing how the BRB tells you how to bring them on measure from the edge up to thier full movement (unless something prevents them from doing so like becoming immoblized), in other words you have a choice of how far you can bring in those units, but it must be a legal move. Seeings how there is a clearly defined are and the game was designed to be played in/on a specific area, not being inside that area is not a legal move.
Please for the sake of my sanity do not attribute any ideas that are yours, or circumstances you might think of, to me. I will do the same and everyone will get along.
28090
Post by: liam0404
Probably a bit late now, but could we get some sort of poll on this thread? So we can have a clear "dakka" opinion?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Seeings how there is a clearly defined are and the game was designed to be played in/on a specific area, not being inside that area is not a legal move.
Please for the sake of my sanity do not attribute any ideas that are yours, or circumstances you might think of, to me. I will do the same and everyone will get along.
+1 to the last bit.
The first. . .questionable.
What you wrote, I think everyone agrees with. Unfortunately, you wrote it like the book and did not write "not being 100% inside that area is not a legal move".
Part of a model's base within 2" means the model is within 2".
Also, to recap:
kirsanth wrote: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.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Seeings how there is a clearly defined are and the game was designed to be played in/on a specific area, not being inside that area is not a legal move.
Please for the sake of my sanity do not attribute any ideas that are yours, or circumstances you might think of, to me. I will do the same and everyone will get along.
+1 to the last bit.
The first. . .questionable.
What you wrote, I think everyone agrees with. Unfortunately, you wrote it like the book and did not write "not being 100% inside that area is not a legal move".
Part of a model's base within 2" means the model is within 2"
Problem with that example is that, this is about a specific rule that says you must be within 2" of another model in the unit. So it has no bearing on whether or not a model can be placed, moved onto, or whatever on the table edge, also known as the playing surface. We as a community have to look at it and say what is the right anwser and flush out all the ideas that could be wrong. So far we have done a lot of this and arguement back and forth. I would also like to point out that with a defined playing area it does limit where things can go/be and where whatever your talking about is on/in.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I would also like to point out that with a defined playing area it does limit where things can go/be and where whatever your talking about is on/in.
Agreed. I do not think it is as cut and dry as you seem to be stating, though. If a vehicle gets immobilized moving onto the board, with only part of its hull on the table, what happens? There are 3 answers I have seen. 1) Vehicle Destroyed. (Why?) 2) Vehicle remains where it was, usually via WMS. (/shrug) 3) The game breaks! (This is a non-answer) Am I missing anything? Automatically Appended Next Post: Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Problem with that example is that, this is about a specific rule that says you must be within 2" of another model in the unit. So it has no bearing on whether or not a model can be placed, moved onto, or whatever on the table edge, also known as the playing surface.
Also, this section is simply titled "Measuring Distances", which is why I referenced it.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I would also like to point out that with a defined playing area it does limit where things can go/be and where whatever your talking about is on/in.
Agreed.
I do not think it is as cut and dry as you seem to be stating, though.
If a vehicle gets immobilized moving onto the board, with only part of its hull on the table, what happens?
There are 3 answers I have seen.
1) Vehicle Destroyed. (Why?)
2) Vehicle remains where it was, usually via WMS. (/shrug)
3) The game breaks! (This is a non-answer)
Am I missing anything?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Problem with that example is that, this is about a specific rule that says you must be within 2" of another model in the unit. So it has no bearing on whether or not a model can be placed, moved onto, or whatever on the table edge, also known as the playing surface.
Also, this section is simply titled "Measuring Distances", which is why I referenced it.
1) I am okay with!
2) WMS does not apply here since the vehicle stopsoutside of terrain, and WMS only applies to models in terrain.
3) agreed!
ooooooo I have a fourth one! wait a second let me think!!! Oh and it is a suggestion!
4) placing a model that is not within the parameters of the placing surface is not allowed there, the vehicle is forfiet? (I know it sounds like destroyed but isn't) In other words they have been deployed to another battle area. Due to you not being able to put them in the field of play legally, doesn't count against you, doesn't help you.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
2) WMS does not apply here since the vehicle stopsoutside of terrain, and WMS only applies to models in terrain
This is false. I thought this at first, however it does only say 'terrain.' This includes clear terrain which includes the entire board (the majority of the table).
so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table? Who care if it is off?
Half on and half off are one in the same. Yes but no rules care if you are off
Um..considering that the argument is that partially on is on, most of us care if you are on. Based on pages 88 and whichever one has the reserves rule, you do have to be on the table (though partially on satisfies this). If you meant 'partially off' you probably should specify so, & sorry for confusing it.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Whereas I acknowledge I agree with Ail-Shan, I also feel that Kapitalist-Pig's last post is confusing issues--I assume it's an accident, apologies if that is incorrect.
1) We know you think it is okay, yet no rule back it. Could you point out why it is valid? With a page reference if all is well--this is a response out of spite for the rules as far as I can tell.
2)So clear terrain is not terrain? Page 13 disagrees.
3) Great! I may quote that later.
4) This is destroyed in 2/3 of games, and almost as bad (good?) in the remaining 1/3. Removing a model and any potentially embarked models is very much a penalty to the player whose models they are without rules backing it. At all.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
[/b][/i][/u] kirsanth wrote:Whereas I acknowledge I agree with Ail-Shan, I also feel that Kapitalist-Pig's last post is confusing issues--I assume it's an accident, apologies if that is incorrect.
1) We know you think it is okay, yet no rule back it. Could you point out why it is valid? With a page reference if all is well--this is a response out of spite for the rules as far as I can tell.
What I meant was I agree with your statment. Not that I agree with the point of view. Or in other words yes please tell me why.
2)So clear terrain is not terrain? Page 13 disagrees.
So then your arguement is that is should not be on the table at all? I think I understand what your saying but want to hear it from you. Addtionally, the table edge is not terrain.
3) Great! I may quote that later.
Fine with this seeing how it probably will not matter later and no one wants the game to break.
4) This is destroyed in 2/3 of games, and almost as bad (good?) in the remaining 1/3. Removing a model and any potentially embarked models is very much a penalty to the player whose models they are without rules backing it. At all.
I understand thats what it looks like but to insist otherwise feels to me like bending the rules for your bonehead mistake.
Again it was a suggestion, although a really bad one now that I have had time to sit down and re-read it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?
The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.
Partially on is still on.
Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.
Whilst I disagree with that, assuming it the sake of the argument, are you happy to play with all the complications I have pointed out?
How do you think it will work in practice?
What complications? Having a mm on the table and the rest off? That's not a complication, that's what the rules say.
Stop talking about "the rules". I have already said that I don't accept your interpretation of the rules but I wish to explore the implications if we take them to be correct.
Those complications that I mentioned that I mentioned earlier.
Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Kilkrazy wrote:
Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.
What prevents you from doing any of those things entirely normally? 
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Additionally, the table edge is not terrain
The table itself is. If you are playing on a floor with marker lines/tape for your boundary, you don't even need to invoke WMS. But since the table is in the air, and the table is terrain (clear terrain), WMS, annoyingly, applies.
Range is measured from the hull. Pivoting is measured from the centre of the hull. LoS is measured from the gun muzzle. Arc of fire is measured from the mounting point. Assault distance is measured to the base. The facing of vehicles is crucial for determining armour value. Vehicles can get a cover save from 50% terrain coverage -- how can you measure 50% if the vehicle is mostly off the table?
Range would be measured to the front of the vehicle (which is still the hull), and that's likely the shortest distance from gun to tank anyway. Pivoting is around the center of the hull (though since you move more off the table by pivoting it could be argued that you are moving off the table). Measuring from the gun will only have possible issues if the gun is off the table. Otherwise it should be fine. And again, based on position the front of the tank will be the closest to anything on the table. Also the 50% terrain coverage only applies to the armor facing you are shooting at (so 50% of the front armor has to be covered if you're shooting at front armor).
I don't really see major issues, other than if you were to argue that the guns that are off the table can't shoot, that pivoting while the center is off the table is illegal (not really a problem though entirely logical), and that armor facing can only be determined by the parts of the model that are on the table (very wide front arc). Of course the first and last both are then breaking up the model into pieces, which logically shouldn't be done as it is still one model (and still, if part of the model is on the table the one model is on the table).
As for the poll idea, it should be in 2 parts. What do the rules say (strictly RAW) and how would you play it (spirit of the game idea).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gorkamorka wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:
Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.
What prevents you from doing any of those things entirely normally?
The fact that there is no terrain off the edge of the table.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Ail-Shan wrote:
The table itself is. If you are playing on a floor with marker lines/tape for your boundary, you don't even need to invoke WMS. But since the table is in the air, and the table is terrain (clear terrain), WMS, annoyingly, applies.
Actually WMS would not apply here either.
the clear terrain is not making it wobbly, it being off the board is making it wobbly.
ergo WMS does not apply.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Kilkrazy wrote:Gorkamorka wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:
Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.
What prevents you from doing any of those things entirely normally?
The fact that there is no terrain off the edge of the table.
And you need this terrain for these situations... why? LOS is drawn from the firer, why do you need terrain past the edge of the table for it? Range is measured from the firer to the hull, why do you need terrain past the edge of the table to do this? Cover status is determined via obscurement from the point of view of the firer, and vehicles don't benefit from basic area terrain cover, why do you need terrain past the edge of the table? The vehicle isn't magically half missing, it's still there.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
Yes but determining the postion of the firer and what section of the vehicle he is shooting at might be off the table. Making it an illegal placement.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.
And again fallacous reasoning.
It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.
There is nothing stating you can deploy in woods, yet you can do so.
Actually deploying has nothing to do with this (red haring) fallacous arguement.
Actually, incorrect. I am drawing an analogy here.
You are statng that you need explicit permission to do something, as you keep asking how you can use the word "partially" to fulfil reserves. This is analogous to the flawed argument that you cannot deploy in woods, because you are only given permission to deploy in your half of the table.
You can deploy in woods because the deployment rules give you general permission to deploy in your half, and the woods are in your half.
You can move partially on because the reserve rules only requre you to move "onto", and partially on(to) is a subset of this general permission
me wrote:Again, and for the final time: the English language allows you to satisfy they requirement to move "onto" by moving partially on(to). This is how language works, is non fallacious, and follows the time honoured tradition of permission to do general X allows you to do specific action Y which is a subset of X
I have requoted myself, because this is important: YOU NEED TO PROVE THE CONTRA. You need to prove that partially on is NOT a subset of on otherwise, and here is the important part, the language the book is written in defeats your argument, over and over and over.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:We are not talking about what the english language allows we are talking about what the rules allow.
Define "a", then define "the", ONLY USING GAME TERMS.
When you find you cannot do that, you will hopefully have to accept that the game is written in engish and, barring internal definitions external ones MUST be used (otherwise you cannot play the game, at all) - and there is no internal definition of on. Therefore the English "on" is used, and partially on satisifies on.
As we've been stating for ages.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:me wrote:moving partially on is a part of moving on, same as deploying in woods (in your half) is a part of deploying anywhere in your half. Your argument is that youc annot deploy in woods, which is incorrect.
Since it is your argument about not being able to deploy in woods and not mine I will thank you not to contribute that to me.
NO, actually it IS your argument, it is the logical result of your argument.
You are stating explicit permission must be given to perform any specific action, to whit moving partially onto the table. YOu also, therefore, logically require that explicit permission is required in order to deploy within woods.
Sorry, I am using logic (reductio ad absurdum) to show that your argument is highly flawed.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Secondly, I have on many occasions tried to discuss this in a polite manner, and not infered on many occasions what you might be saying. I can not say the same for you. You repeatedly attack a person and thier comprihenson of many things and yet that in of itself is also fallacous.(and if I am not mistaken against the forum rules.
Then please report it. I have attacked 1 person for rudely NOT reading the thread before jumping in with both feet. I have attacked your arguments only.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:You are determining rules based on what is implied from you understanding, we have gone from RAW to RAI in this case. At that point there is no discussing anything with you as you have set your mind to being right to all other exclusions. Addtionaly, I thought you were done two pages ago. Have a nice day!
No, I am not. I am applying the rules of the English language, which the game is written in, AND the rules of the game. You are claiming you cannot use the English language to satisfy rules, which leads me to requiring you, before you continue the "cannot use ENglish to understand the rules" line of reasoning, to please provide page numbers that define the word "on" in 40k terms.
If you cannot do so, you must concede that the English language is required to read the rules at all. In which case partially on satisfying on is correct.
It is RAW, pure and simple.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:P.S. I can also point out fallacous arguments!
You have yet to do so. You have made plenty yourself, however
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
nosferatu1001 wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.
And again fallacous reasoning.
It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.
There is nothing stating you can deploy in woods, yet you can do so.
Actually deploying has nothing to do with this is a red haring fallacous arguement.
Actually, incorrect. I am drawing an analogy here.
You are statng that you need explicit permission to do something, as you keep asking how you can use the word "partially" to fulfil reserves. This is analogous to the flawed argument that you cannot deploy in woods, because you are only given permission to deploy in your half of the table.
^ Is that not suppose to be "on" for it to really be in line with this arguement?
In this case you are bringing something up that has nothing to do with the arguement. That is why it is fallacous. Secondly, that is your thought process, not my words. So again that statment is all your own and has none of my words in it.
You can deploy in woods because the deployment rules give you general permission to deploy in your half, and the woods are in your half.
You can move partially on because the reserve rules only requre you to move "onto", and partially on(to) is a subset of this general permission
Yes but the reserve rules are not the only thing that moving partially on effects. You also have to look at the playing area (which you refuse to do). Those rules give you a defined area of play. You need to be in that area of play otherwise the game breaks.
me wrote:Again, and for the final time: the English language allows you to satisfy they requirement to move "onto" by moving partially on(to). This is how language works, is non fallacious, and follows the time honoured tradition of permission to do general X allows you to do specific action Y which is a subset of X
I have requoted myself, because this is important: YOU NEED TO PROVE THE CONTRA. You need to prove that partially on is NOT a subset of on otherwise, and here is the important part, the language the book is written in defeats your argument, over and over and over.
Execpt you are refusing to acknowledge there are other rules which have been presented to you.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:We are not talking about what the english language allows we are talking about what the rules allow.
Define "a", then define "the", ONLY USING GAME TERMS.
I do not need to as I have made my point. You are infering things, you need to prove with the rules as they are written why your explantion is right.
Therefore the English "on" is used, and partially on satisifies on.
Execpt this is multiple fallacous arguements. Starting with the one I have already pointed out, going to slippery slope. So no you have proven and satified nothing.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:me wrote:moving partially on is a part of moving on, same as deploying in woods (in your half) is a part of deploying anywhere in your half. Your argument is that youc annot deploy in woods, which is incorrect.
Since it is your argument about not being able to deploy in woods and not mine I will thank you not to contribute that to me.
NO, actually it IS your argument, it is the logical result of your argument.
You are stating explicit permission must be given to perform any specific action, to whit moving partially onto the table. YOu also, therefore, logically require that explicit permission is required in order to deploy within woods.
Sorry, I am using logic (reductio ad absurdum) to show that your argument is highly flawed.
Execpt it is your logic that has produced these statments, not mine. So they are your and not mine. Your words, your thoughts, not mine.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Secondly, I have on many occasions tried to discuss this in a polite manner, and not infered on many occasions what you might be saying. I can not say the same for you. You repeatedly attack a person and thier comprihenson of many things and yet that in of itself is also fallacous.(and if I am not mistaken against the forum rules.
Then please report it. I have attacked 1 person for rudely NOT reading the thread before jumping in with both feet. I have attacked your arguments only.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:You are determining rules based on what is implied from you understanding, we have gone from RAW to RAI in this case. At that point there is no discussing anything with you as you have set your mind to being right to all other exclusions. Addtionaly, I thought you were done two pages ago. Have a nice day!
It is RAW, pure and simple.
It is not RAW. Period it is your interpretation of RAW, so it is your RAI.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:P.S. I can also point out fallacous arguments!
You have yet to do so. You have made plenty yourself, however
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Here you are making a fallacious argument which is the compostions fallcy. You are assuming that the whole is on based on a part. You have no back up as to say that partially on is on. Show me in the BRB where it says this. Please do it.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, it does not need to be "on" at all.
Your argument relies entirely, 100% on requiring explicit permission to do X. I am showing that this is fallacious, and showing you how YOUR argument would apply to a comparable situation.
If you cannot draw that comparison yourself (two situations where explicit permission is not required as general permission has been given) then I;m really not sure how much simpler it can be explained.
It is not fallacious to bring up consequences and analogies, btw. You are just wrong here. It is not fallacious to explain the consequences of your argument, and in fact show how that is also wrong.
Do you understand why this is done? Why showing you that, not only is your argument wrong in this specific instance but also leads to incorrect arguments elsewhere?
People have tried to explain this to you using language, which you dismiss, mathematics, which you dismiss; analogy, which you dismiss; and applying your argument to other situations in the book, which you dismiss. Exactly how CAN people explain this to you?
PLease find the words "area of play" and rules which require you to be *****entirely***** within this "area of play", and you may have a point. I have NOT REFUSED to look at the rules defining the game board, I have answered this many times - I suggest paying a little more attention.
Note: this requries the exact phrase "entirely within" or something similar. If, as I suspect you will, you come back with the rules only mentioning "on", well you will have just proven yourself incorrect.
I HAVE explained why I am correct, RAW. You have not explained how you are correct, and your argument relies on not being able to use the lnaguage the book is written in.
As you are claiming you cannot use the language the book is written in, I require you to define "a" using 40k rules. When you have done so, come back.
Again, it is your argument - you posit a requirement for explicit permission, I show what that means. Or are you saying that explicit permission is not needed?
RAW: partially on 10000000% satisfies the requiement to move "onto" the board. To deny this by saying that explicit permission to move partially on, despite the general permission to move partially on already being granted, then you are concluding that you may not deploy models in woods.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
How does this all work in Vassal, btw?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
From memory i didnt think Vassal tried to enfore the rules of 40k, so assuming the engine allows models partially on it wold be up to the players.
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper wrote:
Here is your rules citation nos.
The rule that states games are played ON the 6' by 4' table. It says you have to be on the table, and not off the table, tyvm.
wait whats this the actual quote ... "Standard missions were designed to be played on a 6'by4' gaming surface" This states you need to be on, not partially on. On in this reference is inclusive of the whole base/model.
you are allowed to be on the table, no rules state you can be partially on/off the table.
and please stop with the on fire not on fire/hanging on a cliff/half on and half off a car, they are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Firstly that doesn't say they that games must be played on the table just that they were designed to be . Ignoring that for a second even taking that a Must do rule it would be a very very general rule (they also tell you you can have larger or smaller boards to fit your army ...so they break it fairly quickly)... which is trumped by more specific rules like reserves that start models off the table .
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
And again, as I pointed out the first time this erroneous argument came up - it still says ON.
On, with no qualifications, is 100% satisfied by "partially on"
DR - If you are partially on you are NOT off, to state the blindingly obvious for the 100th time.
28090
Post by: liam0404
I think that too many people are looking at this problem from a "black and white" perspective. Someone quoted Schrodinger's Cat earlier in this thread (I neither can remember, or be bothered to flick through the thread to remember who), and they were close to the mark. Why can't the vehicle be both ON AND OFF? Because it seems to me that's exactly what's happening. Lets look at some things that (I hope) we can all agree on.
Vehicle Makes it fully on to the table
By this, I mean that none of the model is "hanging"off a table edge. In this case we can safely assume that:
The model is 100% ON the table
All of the model's weapons can shoot (pending LOS and movement restrictions for non-defensive weapons of course)[/li]
Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is 100% flush against that side
In this scenario, we can assume:
The model is 100% OFF
NONE of the model's weapons can shoot, as they are not in play
In kill point terms, the model is destroyed
If anyone has major disagreements with these statements, you're going to love what's next! The next points are about the HYBRID situation, of a model's hull being partially within the gaming area (i.e. the 6 x 4), and partially off of this space.
Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is NOT 100% flush against that side, and is immobilised as it tries to enter
Here's where things get a little vague. Here is my interpretation:
The model is X% OFF the table and Y% ON the table
The model is NOT destroyed
Given that in the BRB, it states (though I cannot remember where) "Every wargamer knows that off the table is the end of the world", the only guns which can fire, are those not "out of the gaming world" (i.e off the table surface). I base this assumption, on the fact that if "off the table" really is "the end of the world", then how can it be determined that shooting that weapon isnt impeded by some unseen obstacle? If off the table there is no way to determine that is in that single millimetre of space between the gun and the table, how can one safely say that LOS isn't impeded? You can't, purely because neither player knows what is there, and speculation is not one of the rules of the game
Close combat attacks against the vehicle will still be resolved against rear armour (pending it's not a walker)
I'm certain this will be nitpicked, but I can't see any other logical conclusion to this argument.
6769
Post by: Tri
liam0404 wrote:I think that too many people are looking at this problem from a "black and white" perspective. Someone quoted Schrodinger's Cat earlier in this thread (I neither can remember, or be bothered to flick through the thread to remember who), and they were close to the mark. Why can't the vehicle be both ON AND OFF? Because it seems to me that's exactly what's happening. Lets look at some things that (I hope) we can all agree on.
Vehicle Makes it fully on to the table
By this, I mean that none of the model is "hanging"off a table edge. In this case we can safely assume that:
this is not in debate Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is 100% flush against that side
In this scenario, we can assume:
The model is 100% OFF
NONE of the model's weapons can shoot, as they are not in play
In kill point terms, the model is destroyed
If anyone has major disagreements with these statements, you're going to love what's next! The next points are about the HYBRID situation, of a model's hull being partially within the gaming area (i.e. the 6 x 4), and partially off of this space.
actually models that never make it on to the board are not considered kill points. The only exceptions are a) after rolling on the DS mishap table and B) for wipe out. We also know where the model is so i would see no reason it cannot be shot, shoot or deploy troops. Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is NOT 100% flush against that side, and is immobilised as it tries to enter
Here's where things get a little vague. Here is my interpretation:
The model is X% OFF the table and Y% ON the table
The model is NOT destroyed
Given that in the BRB, it states (though I cannot remember where) "Every wargamer knows that off the table is the end of the world", the only guns which can fire, are those not "out of the gaming world" (i.e off the table surface). I base this assumption, on the fact that if "off the table" really is "the end of the world", then how can it be determined that shooting that weapon isnt impeded by some unseen obstacle? If off the table there is no way to determine that is in that single millimetre of space between the gun and the table, how can one safely say that LOS isn't impeded? You can't, purely because neither player knows what is there, and speculation is not one of the rules of the game
Close combat attacks against the vehicle will still be resolved against rear armour (pending it's not a walker)
I'm certain this will be nitpicked, but I can't see any other logical conclusion to this argument.
GW's BGB FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played
clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers
know that the edge of the table is the end of the
world!
And its only moving off so has no bearing. (not to mention its an FAQ so its a house rule any way) We can measure to and from the model so we can use its weapons.
28090
Post by: liam0404
Tri wrote:liam0404 wrote:
Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is 100% flush against that side
In this scenario, we can assume:
The model is 100% OFF
NONE of the model's weapons can shoot, as they are not in play
In kill point terms, the model is destroyed
If anyone has major disagreements with these statements, you're going to love what's next! The next points are about the HYBRID situation, of a model's hull being partially within the gaming area (i.e. the 6 x 4), and partially off of this space.
actually models that never make it on to the board are not considered kill points. The only exceptions are a) after rolling on the DS mishap table and B) for wipe out.
We also know where the model is so i would see no reason it cannot be shot, shoot or deploy troops.
You are kidding of course? You're now saying you can shoot a a model that is 100% OFF the table?
6769
Post by: Tri
liam0404 wrote:You are kidding of course? You're now saying you can shoot a a model that is 100% OFF the table?
Well lets see we target that model or it choose to shoot. We place the model where it was immobilized (just off the board) and measure to/from it. Easy Note ... We cannot shoot to or from models in reserve since they have yet to be place.
28090
Post by: liam0404
Even though RAW, the vehicle stops immediately before it comes into contact with the terrain that immobilised it? Which in this case would be OFF THE TABLE?
Wow.
Seriously, Wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
By your logic, I should be able to target my shooting against other reserves which have yet to enter the battle via the reserves rule.
6769
Post by: Tri
liam0404 wrote:Even though RAW, the vehicle stops immediately before it comes into contact with the terrain that immobilised it? Which in this case would be OFF THE TABLE?
Wow.
Seriously, Wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
By your logic, I should be able to target my shooting against other reserves which have yet to enter the battle via the reserves rule.
Find me a rule that says it should be ignored or destroyed. (also look at the bottom of my last post ... models in reserve have not been placed we cannot measure to them. This model has been place ... there just off the board) We have the following options... A) Raw we stop the vehicle where ever it was immobilized and continue on as normal - this breaks no rule but can be a hassle as you hold the model over the edge. B) We break a rule. So we ignore the immobilized or we don't push the model out of terrain or use the DS Mishap table- this breaks one rule a little but is a lot easier to play c) We make up rules. As you have posted - this breaks lots of rules
28090
Post by: liam0404
But you haven't explained why it would be considered "in play", if its "real" position, was immobilised in a location next to the table edge? It is NOT on the table that way - HOW can you shoot at something that is not on the table?
6769
Post by: Tri
liam0404 wrote:But you haven't explained why it would be considered "in play", if its "real" position, was immobilised in a location next to the table edge? It is NOT on the table that way - HOW can you shoot at something that is not on the table?
Right stop this. Were does it say to shoot at or from some thing it needs to be on the board. LOS is from the model (or for vehicles from the weapon weapon) to the target. Do we have both? yes - check Checking range is done from the base (or for vehicles from the weapon). Again we have both - check about the only thing that could not hurt it are blast weapons and that is because they are misses if the central hole is over the table edge.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
As above.
Use WMS, hold the model in the right position and measure to it.
Easy.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Not in that case. Tri you are now breaking the rule that reserves states you move on to the table. Arguing that partially on the table was on the table was successful, but tell me exactly you completely off the table is on the table?
In addition in this case WMS wouldn't apply because you are touching no terrain. If you are a skimmer this is explicitly illegal since the rules for skimmers state that you cannot leave it 'hovering in mid air' and that you must place it on the table.
I can see how you can still interact with the model, but you are now breaking bot the 'played on a 6x4 surface' and the 'move onto the table' from reserves rule, since you are neither on the surface nor moving onto the table.
Actually WMS would not apply here either.
the clear terrain is not making it wobbly, it being off the board is making it wobbly.
ergo WMS does not apply.
This is from a bit ago: The being off the table isn't making the model wobbly. Play on the floor (the rule says 'surface' not 'table') with tape marking the edges and you will notice you can easily place the model. It is wobbly because the table is elevated. The table is clear terrain, hence terrain, and so WMS applies.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
So, anyone from the "they are destroyed" camp got any actual arguments remaining? Or are we just spinning round in circles now?
6769
Post by: Tri
Ail-Shan wrote:Not in that case. Tri you are now breaking the rule that reserves states you move on to the table. Arguing that partially on the table was on the table was successful, but tell me exactly you completely off the table is on the table?.
I did move the tank on ... DT move me off ^_^. WMS starts by giving the example of terrain and goes on to say cases like this.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Gwar! wrote:So, anyone from the "they are destroyed" camp got any actual arguments remaining? Or are we just spinning round in circles now?
...were you expecting coherent arguments from the circle crowd? 
28090
Post by: liam0404
I think I've summed up everything I wanted to say in my earlier post. My cry for a poll also went unheeded.....
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
I did move the tank on ... DT move me off ^_^.
Tri you are now ignoring the other part, where you are still breaking the rule that the game is played 'on' the gaming surface.
Regardless Dangerous Terrain did not 'move you off,' it prevented you from moving on.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
SaintHazard wrote:Gwar! wrote:So, anyone from the "they are destroyed" camp got any actual arguments remaining? Or are we just spinning round in circles now?
...were you expecting coherent arguments from the circle crowd?
Plenty of coherent arguments have been made, which have been dismissed or ignored. This does not invalidate them. So yes, we are spinning in circles. I suggest you play the game your way, and I will play it mine.
6769
Post by: Tri
Ail-Shan wrote:I did move the tank on ... DT move me off ^_^.
Tri you are now ignoring the other part, where you are still breaking the rule that the game is played 'on' the gaming surface. Regardless Dangerous Terrain did not 'move you off,' it prevented you from moving on.
Reserves you must move on. Ok I must move on, oh no failed a dangerous terrain test i can't move any further. Done. Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
Tri wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Here is your rules citation nos.
The rule that states games are played ON the 6' by 4' table. It says you have to be on the table, and not off the table, tyvm.
wait whats this the actual quote ... "Standard missions were designed to be played on a 6'by4' gaming surface"
This states you need to be on, not partially on. On in this reference is inclusive of the whole base/model.
you are allowed to be on the table, no rules state you can be partially on/off the table.
and please stop with the on fire not on fire/hanging on a cliff/half on and half off a car, they are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Firstly that doesn't say they that games must be played on the table just that they were designed to be . Ignoring that for a second even taking that a Must do rule it would be a very very general rule (they also tell you you can have larger or smaller boards to fit your army ...so they break it fairly quickly)... which is trumped by more specific rules like reserves that start models off the table .
Only problem is that you have now agreed upon a specific playing area. You changed the playing area from 6x4 to 3x2. In that instance you need to be on, or within this area as it has been agreed upon before hand.
Nos on many an occassin we have spared. This situation is no different. I would like to point out that you using analogies to try to prove my point wrong has no bearing on this issues, since this issue is unique. I have used mathmatics, to prove you wrong, I have stated that your interpretations of what your read is RAI (language), and yet you have yet to acknowldege those things. I am at the point to where I am going to just up and contact GW and get an anwser from them.
Addtionally, I woud like to point out you are not the only one that can say fallacous arguements have been presented, as I have stated many times now yur arguements are just as fallacous.
Moving on.
To tri, as you see I have posted a rebuttal to you situation. In those instances when you and your oppenent agree to change the playing area, you both have come to the understanding that the gaming area is defined. So in like most games, where they are played on a 6x4 foot table, being outside that area at all is not allowable. It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag. Think about it this way. If someone you were playing said I am gonna shoot this pie plate at your squad right here with my (Insert name can't remember its name) which has 7 feet worth of range. You say you cannot, it is not on/in the playing area. To which he reply's oh the playing area doesn't matter. You would not play with him again, because he has broken the game.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.
Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.
6769
Post by: Tri
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Only problem is that you have now agreed upon a specific playing area. You changed the playing area from 6x4 to 3x2. In that instance you need to be on, or within this area as it has been agreed upon before hand.
Nos on many an occassin we have spared. This situation is no different. I would like to point out that you using analogies to try to prove my point wrong has no bearing on this issues, since this issue is unique. I have used mathmatics, to prove you wrong, I have stated that your interpretations of what your read is RAI (language), and yet you have yet to acknowldege those things. I am at the point to where I am going to just up and contact GW and get an anwser from them.
Addtionally, I woud like to point out you are not the only one that can say fallacous arguements have been presented, as I have stated many times now yur arguements are just as fallacous.
Moving on.
To tri, as you see I have posted a rebuttal to you situation. In those instances when you and your oppenent agree to change the playing area, you both have come to the understanding that the gaming area is defined. So in like most games, where they are played on a 6x4 foot table, being outside that area at all is not allowable. It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag. Think about it this way. If someone you were playing said I am gonna shoot this pie plate at your squad right here with my (Insert name can't remember its name) which has 7 feet worth of range. You say you cannot, it is not on/in the playing area. To which he reply's oh the playing area doesn't matter. You would not play with him again, because he has broken the game.
First there is no rule that you must play on the table, what is written is "It was designed to be played on a 4' by 6' table". I may not have made that clear in the first post but i went on to say that even if it was it is trumped by many more specific rules because not everything happens on the table. As for being the TFG is would probably have broken the rules and let him immobilizes it on the board. What i wont ever do is except that it is destroy as there is no rule any where that says that. (nice ninja Kirsanth )
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Tri wrote: (nice ninja Kirsanth )
![]()  " border="0" />
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
KP - this situation isnt unique, not at all. You also dont seem to understand what RAI means vs RAW.
You are given general permission to move onto the board; partially onto is a sub occurence of this general permission and is thus allowed
You are allowed to place models anywhere IN your half of the board. If you want to place models in woods this is allowed as this is a specific instance of the general permission.
To deny the first you ARE denying the second. One is right, the other is wrong.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'
'Designed to be played on' meaning 'this is what we think the gaming are should be. You can do differently if you wish' which then leads back to the 'Most Important Rule' stating that the 'rules aren't all that important.'
Therefore every game is a house ruled game and none of the rules matter because, as Cpt Barbossa says 'they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.'
The entire concept of RAW goes out the window when you argue 'but they say you can play it differently' because they say at the very beginning that you can play the whole thing as differently as you want. Thus by RAW when a vehicle is immobilized and partially off the table, you do whatever you and your opponent agree to, and that is true of every dispute.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Ail-Shan wrote:Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'
'Designed to be played on' meaning 'this is what we think the gaming are should be. You can do differently if you wish'
No, meaning 'Designed to be played on'.
If they wanted to strictly restrict all play to completely inside that area, then they'd put in a rule doing so. There isn't such a rule, so there isn't such a restriction.
Note that the rule would make normal reserve arrival impossible, but people arguing for it don't seem to mind for some reason.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Following the rest of the paragraph, I'd infer that 'designed to be played on' is actually only refering to the dimensions. Of course there is no way to prove this so the paragraph is naturally picked apart so that 'designed to be played on' is used to refer to whether or not you have to play 'on' the table at all. It's logical, but rediculous.
If they wanted to strictly restrict all play to completely inside that area, then they'd put in a rule doing so.
I thought that SM scouts had the 'scout special rule,' which doesn't exist in the BRB. I recall reading somewhere (on Warseer I believe) that this must be a new yet unintroduced special rule because GW is very specific with their words to ensure that people can't lawyer their way into certain actions.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Ail-Shan wrote:I thought that SM scouts had the 'scout special rule,' which doesn't exist in the BRB. I recall reading somewhere (on Warseer I believe) that this must be a new yet unintroduced special rule because GW is very specific with their words to ensure that people can't lawyer their way into certain actions.
You are thinking of the unit "Wolf Scouts Pack" from Codex: Space Wolves. They have a Special rule called "Scout", with no indication of what it does. The unit "Scouts Squad" from Codex: Space Marines does have the "Scouts" USR.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Ail-Shan wrote:I thought that SM scouts had the 'scout special rule,' which doesn't exist in the BRB. I recall reading somewhere (on Warseer I believe) that this must be a new yet unintroduced special rule because GW is very specific with their words to ensure that people can't lawyer their way into certain actions.
So the argument goes something like:
"You aren't allowed to do that. The vehicle is destroyed."
"Wait, what? Where do the rules say that?"
"Well they don't, but GW writes bad rules so I'm right because I think so."
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Gorkamorka wrote:So the argument goes something like:
"You aren't allowed to do that. The vehicle is destroyed."
"Wait, what? Where do the rules say that?"
"Well they don't, but GW writes bad rules so I'm right because I think so."
Repeat that for 14 pages, and you are dead on.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
So the argument goes something like:
"You aren't allowed to do that. The vehicle is destroyed."
"Wait, what? Where do the rules say that?"
"Well they don't, but GW writes bad rules so I'm right because I think so."
I have not made any claim as to what happens when a vehicle is partially off the table for what ever reason in this thread, and haven't asserted that being partially off the table is illigal for a few pages now.
I'm pointing out that claiming that since GW didn't specifically say you have to play 'inside' the gaming surface means that you can play outside of it is faulty. In addition, the original pupose of my point was to state why you couldn't be fully off the table (you are required to be 'on' the table), not that you cannot be partially off the table ( nos is correct that partially on is on).
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Ail-Shan wrote:
I'm pointing out that claiming that since GW didn't specifically say you have to play 'inside' the gaming surface means that you can play outside of it is faulty.
How is the completely legal series of actions that leads to this situation faulty? How is the result, which is from a completely legal series of actions and is never declared illegal, illegal? The burden of proof is on you and the rules, not on the people performing a series of normally completely allowed actions. "It doesn't say I can't" is a completely legitimate argument when you already can do something.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
How is the completely legal series of actions that leads to this situation faulty? How is the result, which is from a completely legal series of actions and is never declared illegal, illegal?
Because of the declaration that the game is designed to be played on a 6x4 gaming surface. The dimesion is less important than the fact that it is to be played 'on' the gaming surface. While, yes, partially on is on, completely off is in no way on.
23066
Post by: mrwhoop
Well, after reading 14 pages of this my eyes hurt...so I'll keep this short.
RAW: nothing I can find says what happens to a vehicle that gets immobilized flush with the table edge. If it gets immobilized a little on/off I just thought it was WMS, find a spot and let's keep playing the game.
RAI :  I have no clue what GW thinks half the time anyway so
And lastly, the rules concerning emergency disembark and trapped while falling back almost made sense to me about destroying the vehicle. Can't place it on the table: gone. Can't run back to the table edge: gone. Vehicle can't move onto the table - oh yeah, no rule. Let's house rule/agree what happens and play this game. (And no, how I play this will be my little secret. Oh and the TOs  )
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.
Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.
Not a problem with me since I am not saying that it should be destroyed. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tri wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Only problem is that you have now agreed upon a specific playing area. You changed the playing area from 6x4 to 3x2. In that instance you need to be on, or within this area as it has been agreed upon before hand.
Nos on many an occassin we have spared. This situation is no different. I would like to point out that you using analogies to try to prove my point wrong has no bearing on this issues, since this issue is unique. I have used mathmatics, to prove you wrong, I have stated that your interpretations of what your read is RAI (language), and yet you have yet to acknowldege those things. I am at the point to where I am going to just up and contact GW and get an anwser from them.
Addtionally, I woud like to point out you are not the only one that can say fallacous arguements have been presented, as I have stated many times now yur arguements are just as fallacous.
Moving on.
To tri, as you see I have posted a rebuttal to you situation. In those instances when you and your oppenent agree to change the playing area, you both have come to the understanding that the gaming area is defined. So in like most games, where they are played on a 6x4 foot table, being outside that area at all is not allowable. It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag. Think about it this way. If someone you were playing said I am gonna shoot this pie plate at your squad right here with my (Insert name can't remember its name) which has 7 feet worth of range. You say you cannot, it is not on/in the playing area. To which he reply's oh the playing area doesn't matter. You would not play with him again, because he has broken the game.
First there is no rule that you must play on the table, what is written is "It was designed to be played on a 4' by 6' table". I may not have made that clear in the first post but i went on to say that even if it was it is trumped by many more specific rules because not everything happens on the table.
As for being the TFG is would probably have broken the rules and let him immobilizes it on the board. What i wont ever do is except that it is destroy as there is no rule any where that says that. (nice ninja Kirsanth )
So hey lets play a game over the internet, or how about on the telephone? Since the area of play does not matter, then we don't need anything to play. Automatically Appended Next Post: nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - this situation isnt unique, not at all. You also dont seem to understand what RAI means vs RAW.
You are given general permission to move onto the board; partially onto is a sub occurence of this general permission and is thus allowed
You are allowed to place models anywhere IN your half of the board. If you want to place models in woods this is allowed as this is a specific instance of the general permission.
To deny the first you ARE denying the second. One is right, the other is wrong.
That is you interpretation. Your RAI
My interpretation is different. I consider other things like playing area. My RAI.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.
Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?
(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
Gorkamorka wrote:Ail-Shan wrote:Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'
'Designed to be played on' meaning 'this is what we think the gaming are should be. You can do differently if you wish'
No, meaning 'Designed to be played on'.
If they wanted to strictly restrict all play to completely inside that area, then they'd put in a rule doing so. There isn't such a rule, so there isn't such a restriction.
Note that the rule would make normal reserve arrival impossible, but people arguing for it don't seem to mind for some reason.
Actually, when you play a game you and your oppenent are suppose to argee on the playing area. So then you are breaking an agreement with your oppenent. Additionally, I would like to see you do such a thing and watch as (at least in my area) you would be laugh out the store.
Reseveres has a specific thing you do. My interpretation does not break that. Reserves covers the rules about what you do. It has the resevers rules that you follow, and they detail what you do.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.
Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?
(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)
Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.
Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.
Not a problem with me since I am not saying that it should be destroyed.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: the vehicle is forfiet
Functionally identical in 2/3 of the games, and the last third it's almost as bad. Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Reserves covers the rules about what you do. It has the resevers rules that you follow, and they detail what you do.
Reserves move on to the board, like everyone has said. If they move on to the board and do not fit entirely for whatever reason, the rules do NOT "detail what you do".
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.
Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?
(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)
Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.
And the rest of the unit, which isn't physically on the table in the sense that vertically underneath it there is no table, counts as being on the table?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.
Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?
(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)
Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.
And the rest of the unit, which isn't physically on the table in the sense that vertically underneath it there is no table, counts as being on the table?
No, because all of the models will need to be 1mm on.
I think we misunderstand each other. I was talking about having all the models on the unit be 1mm on. This is fair and legal.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
pages ago kirsanth wrote: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.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.
Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?
(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)
Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.
And the rest of the unit, which isn't physically on the table in the sense that vertically underneath it there is no table, counts as being on the table?
No, because all of the models will need to be 1mm on.
I think we misunderstand each other. I was talking about having all the models on the unit be 1mm on. This is fair and legal.
Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?
Because models must be on the table?
6769
Post by: Tri
Cut it simply RAW is this...
All units must move on when come in from reserve. That means that every thing must move towards being on the table. This means that normally all unit must have all models at least partially on the table.
Vehicles can come into difficulty as they can be shunted out of the terrain they were trying to enter, there for if the terrain is on the edge they are placed off the board.
We can use Wobbly model syndrome here or when the model is partially on: it specifies it can be used in situations where a model is placed where it may fall and be damaged. We mark the spot and place the mode safely on the board. When we need to measure to that model we hold it in place were it was immobilized.
Note you cannot shoot at models in reserve as they have not yet been placed so you cannot measure to or from them.
...and that is RAW. Every one is welcome to house rule this differently, myself I'll immobilize the vehicle on the board after its finished moving.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?
Because models must be on the table?
Where does it say that?
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:kirsanth wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.
Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.
Not a problem with me since I am not saying that it should be destroyed.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: the vehicle is forfiet
Functionally identical in 2/3 of the games, and the last third it's almost as bad.
In a later poast I agree with you that, my suggestion at that time was a horrible one. Don't nit pick to prove yourself right here. Especailly when someone is trying to work with you. Also forfiet is not destroyed, it is like but is not.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Reserves covers the rules about what you do. It has the resevers rules that you follow, and they detail what you do.
Reserves move on to the board, like everyone has said.
If they move on to the board and do not fit entirely for whatever reason, the rules do NOT "detail what you do".
I am just gonna say this one thing. to those of you who think partially on is okay within the rules, tell me how completely on is any different. With this in mind you (who have) stated that partially on fullfills the requirements are putting you own interpretation on what is required. Give me verbatum from the book and I will agree with you. Until then this arguement as I have stated many times is RAI.
At this point I would point you to the area of play arguement. Did you follow the rules for moving your models onto the board? Not by your understanding, but did you complete the things you must do? Like playing within/on the agreed upon space?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?
Because models must be on the table?
Where does it say that?
English?
The rules for Reserves say the unit must move on. The reserve rules also say "Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield..."
Since you have to put them flush to the edge of the table and move them (since each models move is measured, which means it must have moved) it can move 1 Planck length and be 1 Planck length on the board, which is on the board.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
That does not follow, actually.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:That does not follow, actually.
Sure it does.
You cannot measure a move if it never happened. A Move of 0" is not the same as no move. Since Models cannot be off the board, they must have moved some non-0" distance.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Page 94. "When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table. . .each model's move is measured from"
Normal movement allows for a non-move. Reserves do not.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The rule says the unit must move on to the table, not the individual models.
We have already established that the unit is represented by the first 1mm of a model.
The rules go on to say how individual models are to be moved, but it does not compel them to move, only the unit must move on to the table.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
As I read it, "each model's move" is not allowing some models NOT to move.
It pretty much falls into the same catagory as 4e synapse rules did, regarding choosing not to move.
Editing to add:
The rest of the rule reinforces it.
"Each model's move is measured. . .and moved as normal"
Normal movement does not allow you to end out of coherency.
Or are you asking if it is OK to measure (for example) to other tables?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
kirsanth wrote:As I read it, "each model's move" is not allowing some models NOT to move.
This. Not moving means you cannot measure the models move. Since you MUST measure the models move, it MUST have moved the unit, it MUST have moved a non 0 distance, which means it is on the board, no matter how little of it actually is. MUST is the new META!
10300
Post by: TheBloodGod
Reserves says they start moving from the very edge of the board, which means before they're finished moving,
There is no possible way of completing the reserves process without models only being partially on the board at some point of their move (since they have a long base and must start the move with only the front of their base on the very edge of the board.)
That would contradict the notion that no model can ever be less than 100% on the field or it is removed from play. (Which there is no strict rule to support.)
Otherwise, the destroyers logical construct for the situation means that EVERY unit moving on from reserves is completely destroyed, because the first half-inch of them moving onto the board they're partially off the board which is destruction.
Now, moving is not simply choosing a start and end location (I'll start off the board and end 3" on the board)
movers move through all of the positions on the way from where they start moving to where they end moving.
Say there's a 3" long forest. If you only measured the start and end, you'd be able to run all the way through it without suffering difficult terrain. No, the model moves entirely through the spaces from where it starts to where it stops so it is slowed.
A model moving onto the board moves through spaces where it isn't 100% on the board, it's impossible not to do so. If it's suddenly immobilized, there's no rule saying it is destroyed because otherwise all reserves would be destroyed because at multiple parts of their move onto the board, they aren't "entirely on the playing surface" as rules lawyers would argue.
Now, a model which hasn't moved any amount at all onto the board is clearly not on the board at all (basic logic), which means that it's destroyed according to rules it must have moved on.
6846
Post by: solkan
It's really impressive that the threads gone for complete circles for fourteen or more pages without any flaming or anything, but it's sad that the only actual precedent is being ignored.
The rules for arriving from reserve state that any special rule which would prevent a unit from arriving from reserve is ignored. Vehicle movement, and becoming immobilized due to difficult terrain, certainly seems to be just as much a special rule as anything else (the USR's, the various special rules such as deep strike, etc.). So you have that precedent versus "It has to come on to the board, but it can't because it's immobilized. It obviously must be destroyed as an affront to the rules."
P.S. I've played 40K on the floor with my nephew and I have to admit that the edges of the "board" kept shifting during the game. I'll go turn myself in to the 40K Police for not playing on a board now while the argument over the definition of 'on' continues... 
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?
Because models must be on the table?
And there you have it. models must be on the table.
On means on.
On does not mean off.
ergo if you are partially on, you are also partially off.
and since models must be on the table, and on, in this case, is inclusive, you can not be partially off the table, because you must be on the table.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Except Partially On is on.
A model that is partially on the table is on the table.
The rules do not say you must be fully on the table, it just says on.
12313
Post by: Ouze
So, by the "it only has to be 1mm onto the table" camp, you have no problem with me moving my tanks 1mm onto a table from reserve, ending my move there, and denying you my side or rear armor for the rest of the game, right? After all, per pg 94 (reserve rules) there is nothing explicitly keeping me from doing so - right? It's "on the table", isn't it?
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and the responses were "if you can show me a rule that says you're allowed to do so". Well, can you show me a rule that says I cannot do so? You cannot have it both ways. Either it's a permissive ruleset, or a restrictive one, but it can't be both.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Ouze wrote:So, by the "it only has to be 1mm onto the table" camp, you have no problem with me moving my tanks 1mm onto a table from reserve, ending my move there, and denying you my side or rear armor for the rest of the game, right?
Firstly, I am more than able to hit your side armour. I just have to be in your side arc.  Secondly, this is no different to parking your Manticores (or whatever) flush against the table edge so I can't hit the rear armour. Completely fair and legal.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Gwar! wrote:Except Partially On is on.
A model that is partially on the table is on the table.
The rules do not say you must be fully on the table, it just says on.
Except Partially on is partially off as well, and since you have to be on the table, that restricts you from being off the table.
On, in this case, is Inclusive and not exclusive.
The base has to be on the table. If any part of the base is not on the table then that is against the rules.
Thank you and goodnight.
28090
Post by: liam0404
I can't agree Gwar, id say shooting at parts of the vehicle that are clearly OFF the table (as in your diagram) should not be allowed. Same goes for sponsons/turrets on the vehicle that are "out of bounds".
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
DeathReaper wrote:
Except Partially on is partially off as well, and since you have to be on the table, that restricts you from being off the table.
On, in this case, is Inclusive and not exclusive.
The base has to be on the table. If any part of the base is not on the table then that is against the rules.
None of that is true, as has been repeatedly conclusively proven in this thread. Partially on is on. It's not fully on, but the rules don't ask for fully on, they just ask for on. It's partially off, but the rules don't ask for it not to be. They just ask for it to be on, which it is. ChrisCP wrote:
It really can't get much simpler than this. Sticking your head in the sand and yelling you're right without any new arguments or evidence isn't really convincing.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DeathReaper wrote:Gwar! wrote:Except Partially On is on.
A model that is partially on the table is on the table.
The rules do not say you must be fully on the table, it just says on.
Except Partially on is partially off as well, and since you have to be on the table, that restricts you from being off the table.
On, in this case, is Inclusive and not exclusive.
The base has to be on the table. If any part of the base is not on the table then that is against the rules.
Thank you and goodnight.
Nope, you keep saying this but all this disagrees with you:
The English language
Mathematics
Logic
Keep going though, it is damn funny.
If you are even 1mm ON the table, you are NOT OFF the table. That is impossible. Pretending otherwise is, well, laughable.
33307
Post by: Gutsnagga
I think the vehicle would count as on the table if the exact location where it came on has a tiny bit of room between it and the table edge.
Otherwise, BOOM! This is just IMHO, though.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
kirsanth wrote:As I read it, "each model's move" is not allowing some models NOT to move.
It pretty much falls into the same catagory as 4e synapse rules did, regarding choosing not to move.
Editing to add:
The rest of the rule reinforces it.
"Each model's move is measured. . .and moved as normal"
Normal movement does not allow you to end out of coherency.
Or are you asking if it is OK to measure (for example) to other tables?
Are you saying that models are required and forced to move?
6769
Post by: Tri
Scratch that it is unit teach me not to check before post. Well since each models move is measured as if they were just off the board you could choose to not move the models (apart from one that needs to move a little on so as to meet the unit moving on requirement)
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
OK, so the situation is that as long as one model's base is 1mm on the edge of the table, the unit is legally in play.
However most of the models in the unit can be off the board, and their positions will be inferred from the general rules of coherency.
In order to 'play' with the models, the owning player uses the 'wobbly model' rule to hold them in the place they would be if the table were wider. Perhaps by placing the models on a tray or hardback book.
6769
Post by: Tri
Kilkrazy wrote:OK, so the situation is that as long as one model's base is 1mm on the edge of the table, the unit is legally in play.
However most of the models in the unit can be off the board, and their positions will be inferred from the general rules of coherency.
In order to 'play' with the models, the owning player uses the 'wobbly model' rule to hold them in the place they would be if the table were wider. Perhaps by placing the models on a tray or hardback book.
Yes. Will any one play that way? ... doubtful after all this is a game we're meant to enjoy and balancing my models on books just off the table seems to go against that (Still you're playing on the floor its going to be easier). Once you've read rule book updates, like the 8th fantasy, you do wonder why those in charge of this update haven't been fired ... preferably out of a cannon ^_^ ... I mean they even managed updates to all codices army books. Yet the best 40k got was tiny paragraph reading (effectively) if it don't work tough.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:OK, so the situation is that as long as one model's base is 1mm on the edge of the table, the unit is legally in play.
Except it isn't, because as we already have shown, models are forced to move a non-0 distance onto the board from reserves.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:OK, so the situation is that as long as one model's base is 1mm on the edge of the table, the unit is legally in play.
Except it isn't, because as we already have shown, models are forced to move a non-0 distance onto the board from reserves.
Would you mind repeating that, as I can't find the reference.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
OK.
The reserves rule requires units not models to move on to the table.
The reserve movement rules explain how to move individual models within the unit if you want to move them.
Players are not require to move all the models within a unit if they decide to move some of them. The unit still counts as moving.
Thus if 1mm of a model's base moves on to the table, the whole unit is 'on' the table.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kilkrazy wrote:OK.
The reserves rule requires units not models to move on to the table.
The reserve movement rules explain how to move individual models within the unit if you want to move them.
Players are not require to move all the models within a unit if they decide to move some of them. The unit still counts as moving.
Thus if 1mm of a model's base moves on to the table, the whole unit is 'on' the table.
Sorry, but they are for reserves.
"Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield..."
You cannot measure a move that doesn't happen. Therefore, since you are measuring a models move, IT MUST HAVE MOVED.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:DeathReaper wrote:Gwar! wrote:Except Partially On is on.
A model that is partially on the table is on the table.
The rules do not say you must be fully on the table, it just says on.
Except Partially on is partially off as well, and since you have to be on the table, that restricts you from being off the table.
On, in this case, is Inclusive and not exclusive.
The base has to be on the table. If any part of the base is not on the table then that is against the rules.
Thank you and goodnight.
Nope, you keep saying this but all this disagrees with you:
The English language
Mathematics
Logic
Keep going though, it is damn funny.
If you are even 1mm ON the table, you are NOT OFF the table. That is impossible. Pretending otherwise is, well, laughable.
So you can be off the table and in play then?
I get that your base is partially on the table, but the requirement is for the base to be on the table. This would mean that you can not be off the table.
All this agree's with me, and not the other way around, as you pointed out.
lets look at:
The English language: on means on, on does not mean off. in this case on is inclusive of the whole base.
Mathematics: on a 2" base if 1" is on, by default 1" has to be off. simple 1st grade math. (maybe second grade)
Logic: If something is half on, and half off, that means it exists in both states, or partially if you will.
saying a model is legally in play if it is 1" on (and 1" off) the table is false. since you have to move onto the table, if you are partially off the table that does not fulfill the requirement since you are partially off the table. You are partially on as well, but the rules say you have to be on, so if any part of the base is off, it can not be on the table.
ergo a move that can not be made, since your base is Partially off the table.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
DeathReaper wrote:Gwar! wrote:Except Partially On is on.
A model that is partially on the table is on the table.
The rules do not say you must be fully on the table, it just says on.
Except Partially on is partially off as well, and since you have to be on the table, that restricts you from being off the table.
On, in this case, is Inclusive and not exclusive.
The base has to be on the table. If any part of the base is not on the table then that is against the rules.
Thank you and goodnight.
-and-
DeathReaper wrote:
So you can be off the table and in play then?
I get that your base is partially on the table, but the requirement is for the base to be on the table. This would mean that you can not be off the table.
All this agree's with me, and not the other way around, as you pointed out.
lets look at:
The English language: on means on, on does not mean off. in this case on is inclusive of the whole base.
Mathematics: on a 2" base if 1" is on, by default 1" has to be off. simple 1st grade math. (maybe second grade)
Logic: If something is half on, and half off, that means it exists in both states, or partially if you will.
saying a model is legally in play if it is 1" on (and 1" off) the table is false. since you have to move onto the table, if you are partially off the table that does not fulfill the requirement since you are partially off the table. You are partially on as well, but the rules say you have to be on, so if any part of the base is off, it can not be on the table.
ergo a move that can not be made, since your base is Partially off the table.
I'm sure this has been brought up in the past 14 pages, but I figured I'd give it a go. What about the necron monolith? The thing is a little more than 6" wide in all directions, and it can only move up to 6". If no model can be partially off of the table, then a monolith can't come in from reserve from the board edge. Are you saying that it is impossible to deploy the monolith from the board edge in any situation, including dawn of war?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
I think he just wants the last word so he can pretend his words make sense.
Partially on is not off.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.
Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on? I, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on. If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.
I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.
So we are playing a game and I have some assualt troops in reserve about to come onto the board, we have effectively dismissed the area of play requirement. So I decide to bring my assault troops on, 13 inchs away from your unit. You contest that, and say I cannot. I say I have no models behind that point, therefore it is me puting my models on the board near my table edge.(remember we got rid of the area of play) So I have done something that is completely legal by your defenition. (This is my idea, and logic from your words. Not "what your saying". As I have been insisting you who have attributade many false things to me have done.)
4680
Post by: time wizard
Gwar! wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:OK.
The reserves rule requires units not models to move on to the table.
The reserve movement rules explain how to move individual models within the unit if you want to move them.
Players are not require to move all the models within a unit if they decide to move some of them. The unit still counts as moving.
Thus if 1mm of a model's base moves on to the table, the whole unit is 'on' the table.
Sorry, but they are for reserves.
"Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield..."
You cannot measure a move that doesn't happen. Therefore, since you are measuring a models move, IT MUST HAVE MOVED.
Not true. You can measure a model's move, and decide to measure and move in another direction or even decide not to move it at all ( BRB page 11).
Therefore measuring a model's move does not mean it must have moved.
However, if you roll the dice for a difficult terrain test, the unit is considered to have moved for shooting purposes, even if it wasn't moved.
To the OP question, I agree with the "the vehicle has made it onto the table and is immobilized" camp.
The issue centers around the terrain being flush with the edge of the table. Suppose it was 1/2" from the edge of the table? Could the vehicle then move onto the table, fail a dangerous test and stop at that point and be immobilized?
At what point do you say that the vehicle has moved far enough to be considered "on the table"?
It must be that if any portion makes it onto the table, the vehicle (or the unit for that matter) are "n the table" and "in play".
To decide otherwise breaks the game by requiring an entire subset of rules to govern the movement.
The simplest solution without breaking any rules is usually the best, and in this case the simplest solution is that the vehicle is on the table and in play.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on?
The point is that 'on' is a qualifier. Legally to arrive from reserves you must move 'on' the gaming surface.
However, there is in no place in the BRB a specification that this must be 'fully' onto the table. Therefore the English language takes over to describe what 'on' means. Since having any part of the model 'on' the table means it is 'on' the table, you satisfy the entering from reserves rule.
It isn't that we're taking the rules as permissive in this case, but that in no place is there a further specification of what 'on' means, and so we are left with the definition we recieve from a dictionary, where having any part on, means you are on.
Also we aren't dismissing the idea of a restricted area of play. However, in no place in the BRB does it specify that you must be 'in' the game area, only that you must be 'on' it. Therefore we are left at the same place, where we must consult a dictionary to define 'on,' and we conclude that 'partially on' is still 'on.' Therefore we are not breaking the rules of play because we are 'on' the gaming area, which is all that is required.
KP, we have not removed the area of play (remember I had to argue against Tri that you can't be completely out of the area of play). We are simply following the instruction that we are to be 'on' the area of play, starting our move from the very edge of it (hence why bringing on your assault troops in the middle of the table is faulty). Since you did not bring your assault troops on by starting their move at the edge of the gaming surface, you are breaking the reserve rule.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.
Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on? I, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on. If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.
I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.
So we are playing a game and I have some assualt troops in reserve about to come onto the board, we have effectively dismissed the area of play requirement. So I decide to bring my assault troops on, 13 inchs away from your unit. You contest that, and say I cannot. I say I have no models behind that point, therefore it is me puting my models on the board near my table edge.(remember we got rid of the area of play) So I have done something that is completely legal by your defenition. (This is my idea, and logic from your words. Not "what your saying". As I have been insisting you who have attributade many false things to me have done.)
This argument is garbage. The monolith isn't forced to deepstrike. It says specifically in the BRB that the only time a unit is forced to deepstrike is when it is immobile. The monolith is not immobile, and therefore does not have to deepstrike. It can legally move in from the table edge as per the rules of reserves. Edit: page 94, arriving from reserves, paragraph 3 The word on means that it is "on". It does not mean FULLY on. It only means on. Being partially on the table, is still being on the table. We haven't dismissed the area of play AT ALL. You must move in from the board edge and onto the table, as per the rules. Our argument is only that any part of the model being on the board, is on the board.
7690
Post by: utan
It is a rare situation. Generally, I would suggest a player avoid such controversy by moving onto the board from another point.
RAW does not cover this directly.
From a RAI standpoint, the 5th edition core tries to avoid destroying units via loopholes in the rules. They seem to want to give every unit a chance to fight without rules interference. For example:
* Switching deep strike to a mishap table instead of auto-destroyed (4th ed)
* Allowing disembarkation from points other than the access points when those are blocked
* Ignoring rules that prevent movement when moving on from reserves
* Allowing immobile units to deepstrike in when the mission would prevent their deployment from reserves
Generally, it is when a unit's movement is inhibited by their opponent's activity that it is auto-destroyed. Examples:
* An embarked unit is auto-destroyed when an enemy totally surrounds their transport vehicle to a depth of 2" before destroying it
* A unit falling back from the enemy is auto-destroyed if their path of escape entirely cut off
I would let the unit ignore the difficult terrain rule that could prevent their moving on from reserves in accordance with the RAI.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.
So you would force the Nec ron player to always deepstrike their Monolith?
Lol
Doesnt alter that plastic Baneblades are never allkowed to enter play, according to your incorrect interpretation of the rules.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on?
As you are fully aware, and as you have been told about 20 times per page for 10 pages, the English Language.
Is "on" qualified? There is a simple answer to this. Once you have answered this question you have your answer.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on.
So your interpretation requires inserting words into an otherwise unqualified statement?
Do you not see the fallacy in that? At all?
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.
And this is where you show the extent of how wrong you are. You are requiring us to show that an unqualified statement (general permission, if you will) has been qualified (say, specific permission) otherweise you think it is our interpretation? Lol.
That isnt how the rules or language works.
General permission: move onto
Specific permission: move partially onto -> not needed, granted by the unqualified permission granted above
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.
You keep saying this, as if it were true. Sorry, noone has dismissed this, and you keep ignoring that in the hope sufficient repetition will make people belive you. Not happening.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:Kapitalist-Pig wrote:The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.
So you would force the Nec ron player to always deepstrike their Monolith?
Lol
Doesnt alter that plastic Baneblades are never allkowed to enter play, according to your incorrect interpretation of the rules.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on?
As you are fully aware, and as you have been told about 20 times per page for 10 pages, the English Language.
Is "on" qualified? There is a simple answer to this. Once you have answered this question you have your answer.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on.
So your interpretation requires inserting words into an otherwise unqualified statement?
Do you not see the fallacy in that? At all?
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.
And this is where you show the extent of how wrong you are. You are requiring us to show that an unqualified statement (general permission, if you will) has been qualified (say, specific permission) otherweise you think it is our interpretation? Lol.
That isnt how the rules or language works.
General permission: move onto
Specific permission: move partially onto -> not needed, granted by the unqualified permission granted above
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.
You keep saying this, as if it were true. Sorry, noone has dismissed this, and you keep ignoring that in the hope sufficient repetition will make people belive you. Not happening.
So on means partially off, nice!
???
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
DeathReaper wrote:
So on means partially off, nice!
???
Feel free to actually prove your argument logically, linguistically, or through examples... Oh wait, you can't. Your entire argument is that your argument is right because you think it is, despite conclusive proof to the contrary.  ChrisCP wrote:
Apparently I need to post this on every single page until you get it.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
Gorkamorka wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
So on means partially off, nice!
???
Feel free to actually prove your argument logically, linguistically, or through examples... Oh wait, you can't. Your entire argument is that your argument is right because you think it is, despite conclusive proof to the contrary.
Isn't that the truth. He seems to be banking on the fact that partially off doesn't mean that it is also on the board. Which is incorrect.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DR - do you have an argument, or are you just ignoring everything and blindly repeating the same words over and over and over again?
*looks over last 10 pages* yep, yes you are doing exactly that.
Y0ou have been proven conclusively incorrect, yet still you persist. Worth some points somewhere, I guess.
31280
Post by: Kapitalist-Pig
This is the end. I have to say it and walk away, because quite frankly there is no talking to anybody who cannot ever consider the possibilty that they are wrong.
Give me undisputable fact that your thoery, thought, belief, whatever you are gonna call it is right. I think that on multilpe levels we have proven each other wrong. The only problem, you refuse to acknowledge it.
You have qualified being on the table without taking into account the other rules of the game. Period. End of discussion. Now where does it give any specifics about whether partially on the table is on the table and fully on the table is on the table. Addtionally, when we are talking about a model, are we talking about a piece, a part, some incredibly small bit of the piece? NOOOOOO!!!!!!! The game happens as a whole, the turns happen as a whole, the models are put together to make a WHOLE MODEL!!!!! FFS seriously you are trying to qualify your point with no real truth to it or support for it.
I will give you the defintion to the compostion fallacy, and the slippery slope one as well.Just so you know what I am talking about. I have no idea if you do since you continue on argueing for something which in its own nature is false!
Compostion Fallacy below
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
Slipper Slope Fallacy below
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Both have examples so you can better understand them.
To end my posting for a while, I will be away for the next 5-7 days as personal family events take me to other places. I hope that we can all agree that this has niether been helpful to those searching for anwsers, or come to a conclusion. To everyone I wish a wonderful week, and I will be back hoepfully when sanity on both sides have been restored. ADUE!
32598
Post by: BloodThirSTAR
I would like to see this discussion carry on for at least 20 more pages full of rebuttals and refinements. This thread is extremely interesting to follow and both sides have lots of interesting points to consider. I am hoping this is fully addressed when the sixth edition rules are released to the public. Personally this particular issue has never cropped up once in any game I ever played but having read all the issues here I understand why it is important and looks to need clarification from an august body.
6769
Post by: Tri
Kapitalist-Pig we have answer you have not. The simple fact is this the model is stranded off the board, we can shoot it and it can shoot. This is (now i'm only guessing here ...this just my opinion) not how games workshop want it played. Though as much as i believe that those are the rules and you have two options.
A) play it that way
B) create a house rule with you opponent.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
If the terrain was right on the board edge like this:
The vehicle would hit the terrain, fail its test, and subsequently be placed one inch off the table edge. Hence it is not on the board, and is destroyed.
So in Deadshane1's case, he would be correct. Wouldn't he?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Ironhide wrote:Hence it is not on the board, and is destroyed.
Really? You found that page reference to back this then? Thanks for finding it, but you left it out of your post.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
You have qualified being on the table without taking into account the other rules of the game. Period. End of discussion. Now where does it give any specifics about whether partially on the table is on the table and fully on the table is on the table. Addtionally, when we are talking about a model, are we talking about a piece, a part, some incredibly small bit of the piece? NOOOOOO!!!!!!! The game happens as a whole, the turns happen as a whole, the models are put together to make a WHOLE MODEL!!!!! FFS seriously you are trying to qualify your point with no real truth to it or support for it.
What other rules of the game? The entire point is that we're including all of the rules of the game and finding no mention of the restriction you insist exists. Without a restriction, satisfying the given rules is sufficient. Moving partially on is moving on is legal. "Period. End of discussion." And neither apply. Composition fallacy has nothing to do with this issue. Read through the examples given in your own link. We are not incorrectly inferring something about a larger group from the characteristics of a subset, we're correctly inferring something about the status of an object using the state of the entire object. Noone is saying that if part of the model is on then it must be "entirely on" (the fallacy you imply). But if the object is both on and off the board... then it's on the board (and off the board, but we don't care). Someone who is partially on fire can correctly be said to be "On fire". Not every part of them is on fire, they aren't "Entirely engulfed in flames", but that's not what we're talking about. As a whole, they can be referred to as on fire because part of them is. This is extremely basic English. As for slippery slope, I'm pretty sure what you were after was reductio ad absurdum. I don't think anyone slippery sloped your argument in the entire thread, they merely pointed out logical conclusions of it that made it clearly ridiculous. If you argue: "Every part of your vehicle must be on the playing surface or it's destroyed" A perfectly correct logical absurdum argument is: "Well the roof of every vehicle is off the surface, so all vehicles are destroyed" It's not facetious. It's logical proof that your position is completely untenable.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
kirsanth wrote:Ironhide wrote:Hence it is not on the board, and is destroyed.
Really? You found that page reference to back this then? Thanks for finding it, but you left it out of your post.
Page 57. The vehicle must stop just outside the terrain and is immobilized. Since the terrain is flush with the board, it is off the board and unable to come on. It has always been my understanding that units not on the board at the end of the game are counted as destroyed, but since I can find no reference to this; I guess it is no longer the case.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Gorkamorka wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
So on means partially off, nice!
???
Feel free to actually prove your argument logically, linguistically, or through examples...
Oh wait, you can't. Your entire argument is that your argument is right because you think it is, despite conclusive proof to the contrary.
ChrisCP wrote:
Apparently I need to post this on every single page until you get it.
Those guys are on AND off the table, I guess I will have to post that on every page until you get it.
nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - do you have an argument, or are you just ignoring everything and blindly repeating the same words over and over and over again?
*looks over last 10 pages* yep, yes you are doing exactly that.
Y0ou have been proven conclusively incorrect, yet still you persist. Worth some points somewhere, I guess.
no one has proven me incorrect.
I simply state that partially on is partially off. this conclusion comes from the state of the model not being fully on the playing surface, thus it is only partially on, and at the same time it is partially off.
If you guys can not acknowledge this then you have no basis on which to debate.
if we can not agree on this then there is no debate.
If other side denies this claim that is the reason for debate.
Since you seem to think there is no hard and fast rules for this, we have to look at other rules. the falling back rule sets a precedent about the edge of the board (being that past the edge is out of play) the Deep strike rules seem to go along with this precedent. therefore since there is no current precedent for this situation we have to look at the precedent set by similar situational rules.
kirsanth wrote:I think he just wants the last word so he can pretend his words make sense.
Partially on is not off.
By that logic, Partially off is not on.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
DeathReaper wrote:By that logic, Partially off is not on.
And yet another incorrect and unfounded assumption that has been covered repeatedly for pages. Completely.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
kirsanth wrote:DeathReaper wrote:By that logic, Partially off is not on.
And yet another incorrect and unfounded assumption that has been covered repeatedly for pages. Completely.
So Partially on is not off.
but the reverse is not true?
Partially off is on, not off?
LOL got it.
Interesting logic you have there.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
DeathReaper wrote:Gorkamorka wrote: ChrisCP wrote:
Apparently I need to post this on every single page until you get it.
Those guys are on AND off the table
Wait wait wait. So they're on... and you admit that they're on and know that they're on... but you don't think they're on? Even after specifically admitting that they are on? That's... that's just hilarious, honestly. I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. You just blatantly said that the opposite of what you've been arguing for 10 pages is true.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
because quite frankly there is no talking to anybody who cannot ever consider the possibilty that they are wrong.
I changed my position, though not in the way you'd have liked admittedly.
Those guys are on AND off the table, I guess I will have to post that on every page until you get it.
There is nowhere in the BRB any specification as to what happens when you are not on the board other than the specific reference of deepstrike.
However, I'm learning set theory and want to incorperate some math, Labling on the table as A, off as B, and the model as X.
The requirement of the rules is that X is an element of set A, that is that the model is on the table. Your argument is that, since X is an element of AnB, it is off the table. You are removing the piece that states that X is an element of A. In addition, there are no rules of what happens when a model is off the board (only that it is illigal to not be on the board when you are deployed/enter from reserves). You are arguing that since X is an element of B, it is an illegal placement, while the rest of us (those who propose the opposite) are arguing that, since X is an element of A (on the board), it is satisfying the specifications of the rules.
The illigal placement happens when X is not an element of A (or is an element of A'), not when X is an element of B.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
DeathReaper wrote:Gorkamorka wrote:
Those guys are on AND off the table
Wait wait wait. So they're on... and you admit that they're on and know that they're on... but you don't think they're on?
Even after specifically admitting that they are on?
That's... that's just hilarious, honestly.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. You just blatantly said that the opposite of what you're arguing is true.
Ail-Shan wrote:
There is nowhere in the BRB any specification as to what happens when you are not on the board other than the specific reference of deepstrike.
However, I'm learning set theory and want to incorperate some math, Labling on the table as A, off as B, and the model as X.
The requirement of the rules is that X is an element of set A, that is that the model is on the table. Your argument is that, since X is an element of AnB, it is off the table. You are removing the piece that states that X is an element of A. In addition, there are no rules of what happens when a model is off the board (only that it is illigal to not be on the board when you are deployed/enter from reserves). You are arguing that since X is an element of B, it is an illegal placement, while the rest of us (those who propose the opposite) are arguing that, since X is an element of A (on the board), it is satisfying the specifications of the rules.
The illigal placement happens when X is not an element of A (or is an element of A'), not when X is an element of B.
The reverse would be true Ali, since requiring you to be on the table shows that you can not be off the table. you have to be on it, the opposite of off.
I have said those guys are on the table, AND at the same time they are OFF the table as well.
and since partially on is Partially off, and since you have to be on the table, and since on is inclusive (since if a part of the base is off, by default that part can not be on the table) you have to have the whole base on the table.
If you can point to a part of the base that is not on the table, then you have not satisfied the 'On the table' requirement.
its all or nothing.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
DeathReaper wrote:I have said those guys are on the table,
That is all that the rules ask. Thank you, carry on.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Ah that post reminds me of something I wanted to address.
Addtionally, when we are talking about a model, are we talking about a piece, a part, some incredibly small bit of the piece? No!
That's actually part of the point. The model, as a whole, is on the table because part of the model is on the table. As a direct game comparison, if just part of a model is in area terrain, the model is counted as in terrain (yes I admit this has nothing to do with deployment/reserve movement, but it's an adequate comparison to show a point).
5873
Post by: kirsanth
DeathReaper wrote: you have to have the whole base on the table.
This is you actually making things up and then trying to hold them up as actual rules.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
and since partially on is Partially off, and since you have to be on the table, and since on is inclusive (since if a part of the base is off, by default that part can not be on the table) you have to have the whole base on the table.
If you can point to a part of the base that is not on the table, then you have not satisfied the 'On the table' requirement.
Mind you, pointing to a part of the model and claiming that 'that part isn't on so you are off the table' is going against KP's point that we are considering whole models, not just parts.
In any case, you are still arguing that we are off because X is an element of B, when all that the rules ask is that X is an element of A, or not an element of A'. As a further point, B is not a sub-set of A' because it contains values of X that are elements of AnB. Thus, just because X is an element of B doesn't mean that it's an element of A', and therefore X being an element of B is irrelivant (all we care about is whether X is an element of A or if X is an element of A').
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Ail-Shan wrote:
Mind you, pointing to a part of the model and claiming that 'that part isn't on so you are off the table' is going against KP's point that we are considering whole models, not just parts.
In any case, you are still arguing that we are off because X is an element of B, when all that the rules ask is that X is an element of A, or not an element of A'. As a further point, B is not a sub-set of A' because it contains values of X that are elements of AnB. Thus, just because X is an element of B doesn't mean that it's an element of A', and therefore X being an element of B is irrelivant (all we care about is whether X is an element of A or if X is an element of A').
'
Read below.
kirsanth wrote:DeathReaper wrote: you have to have the whole base on the table.
This is you actually making things up and then trying to hold them up as actual rules.
No it is not.
ON IS INCLUSIVE. as per the rules. since we have a permissive rules set. (since it says on and not partially on)
On is not exclusive. as per the rules, since we have a permissive rules set. (since it does not say partially on)
on means on, on does not mean off.
therefore the model (note they say model, not any part of, or some of, or a little bit of) must be on the table. (the model, as in the whole model)
for something to be on the table it must not be off the table.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
ON IS INCLUSIVE. as per the rules. since we have a permissive rules set. (since it says on and not partially on)
Again, you are arguing falsely. The requirement is that you are on (you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on). The contrary to this is that you are not on (not in the little circle that includes all things that are on). Partially on and partially off is a zone where you are in both little circles. Hence you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on, and not not in the little circle that includes all things that are on. It's quite clear (apparently you don't know set theory. Nothing against you, I just think that it's a perfect representation).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Ail-Shan wrote:ON IS INCLUSIVE. as per the rules. since we have a permissive rules set. (since it says on and not partially on)
Again, you are arguing falsely. The requirement is that you are on (you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on). The contrary to this is that you are not on (not in the little circle that includes all things that are on). Partially on and partially off is a zone where you are in both little circles. Hence you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on, and not not in the little circle that includes all things that are on. It's quite clear (apparently you don't know set theory. Nothing against you, I just think that it's a perfect representation).
The requirement is that you are on. true! if you are partially on and partially off you are not 'ON' the table you are partially on which is not the same as being on. because partially on is partially off and you have to be on, not off.
it has to say you can be off the table to be able to be off the table.
since there aren't any defined rules we have to look at similar rules that set precedent about the board edge, such as falling back and deep striking.
and we can see by these examples that not fully on the board causes problems/mishaps.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
The requirement is that you are on. true! if you are partially on and partially off you are not 'ON' the table you are partially on which is not the same as being on. because partially on is partially off and you have to be on, not off.
If X is an element of AnB, then X is an element of A.
In game terms, if the model is on the table and off the table (in other words partially on), the it is on the table.
You do not have to not be off the table. You have to be on the table. Only part of 'not on the table' is 'partially on the table' while the rest is fully 'not on the table.' Again the only requirement is that you are on the table (element of A) and if you are partially on the table (element of A and B) you are on the table.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
Ail-Shan wrote:ON IS INCLUSIVE. as per the rules. since we have a permissive rules set. (since it says on and not partially on)
Again, you are arguing falsely. The requirement is that you are on (you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on). The contrary to this is that you are not on (not in the little circle that includes all things that are on). Partially on and partially off is a zone where you are in both little circles. Hence you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on, and not not in the little circle that includes all things that are on. It's quite clear (apparently you don't know set theory. Nothing against you, I just think that it's a perfect representation).
You made a very good point, I agree that set theory models this issue perfectly. Look up the definition of on, it is used to describe something that is supported by something else. If a model is supported by the table, it is conclusively ON the table. Please note, being supported means only that any of the model's weight is held by the table. A different definition that applies is that the model be in contact with the surface. Touching the surface of the table, is by definition, being on the table. Is a model partially on the table in contact with, or being supported by the table in any way? Then for all intents and purposes, it is ON the table. It doesn't matter that it isn't "fully in contact, or fully supported". Being even slightly in contact or slightly supported appeases the the qualification of being "on" something, and therefore the rule. Here's a link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
you guys are missing the point.
the point is, on is inclusive
since it does not say partially on, you must be on, and can not be off by this definition
so if any part is off, you have not met the on requirement.
There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.
and other rules set a precedent for what happens to models that move off the board/ come into contact with the board edge.
ergo we must take from it that on the board (fully not partially) is in play and off the board (fully or partially) is not in play, unless of course there is a special rule that lets you have an effect on the game while not in play.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
DeathReaper wrote:you guys are missing the point.
the point is, on is inclusive
since it does not say partially on, you must be on, and can not be off by this definition
so if any part is off, you have not met the on requirement.
There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.
No, the point is that you're entirely fabricating these claims.
DeathReaper wrote:
and other rules set a precedent for what happens to models that move off the board/ come into contact with the board edge.
ergo we must take from it that on the board (fully not partially) is in play and off the board (fully or partially) is not in play
Really? We must use a vague unspecified precedent from inapplicable separate rules?
How about we just use the actual rules?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Gorkamorka wrote:DeathReaper wrote:you guys are missing the point.
the point is, on is inclusive
since it does not say partially on, you must be on, and can not be off by this definition
so if any part is off, you have not met the on requirement.
There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.
No, the point is that you're entirely fabricating these claims.
Really? We must use a vague unspecified precedent from inapplicable separate rules?
How about we just use the actual rules?
What else have we to go by, but prior precedent in this case? since there are no clearly defined rules for this situation.
so, by your logic gork, i can be partially off the table and in play?
so a vehicle that is "on" as you put it can still fire the weapons that are on the vehicle yet clearly off the table?
simply put no. no fabrication needed.
A model must be on the table
by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.
having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.
what about the rules that set precedent about the table edge? we can not just ignore those rules simply because they go against what you guys are saying. I know they are not rules for this situation, but they are extremely similar in that they deal with what happens to models that hit /go over the board edge, thus the precedent can't be discounted in this case.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
DeathReaper wrote:
We can not just ignore those rules simply because they go against what you guys are saying.
I know they are not rules for this situation
How about we ignore them because they aren't rules for this situation?
Also note that they aren't going against what we're saying... since they aren't rules for this situation.
DeathReaper wrote:
A model must be on the table
by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.
having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.
I can prove that the rules do not say this.
You can prove that you think that the rules say this.
See where the problem is?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Gorkamorka wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
We can not just ignore those rules simply because they go against what you guys are saying.
I know they are not rules for this situation
How about we ignore them because they aren't rules for this situation?
Also note that they aren't going against what we're saying... since they aren't rules for this situation.
DeathReaper wrote:
A model must be on the table
by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.
having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.
I can prove that the rules do not say this.
You can prove that you think that the rules say this.
See where the problem is?
Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.
The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.
The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then
Hehe, if off means nothing then why does it matter if a model is partially off (since it doesn't say wholly on or entier base or anything like that).
Btw your grammer has improved as you've fought to improve your argument, capitals too!
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
ChrisCP wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.
The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then
Hehe, if off means nothing then why does it matter if a model is partially off (since it doesn't say wholly on or entier base or anything like that).
Btw your grammer has improved as you've fought to improve your argument, capitals too!
Thank you.
My grammar is terrible, i know that, i have great mathematical skills, thus my grammar lacks considerably.
the bold text was sarcasm. which does not convey well over a message board it seems
it does not say wholly, it does not say partially either.
so we must conclude that 'the model' must means the whole model. and not some portion thereof.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
No that's a conclusion you've draw not something I must conclude. In addition it's been proven a fallicious point, as to measure to vehicle we measure to the hull, and the point of hull to which we measure is not on the table - ergo an illegal placing.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DR - you are still inserting the word "fully" implicitly into your argument.
The ENTIRE pioint is that the word on has no qualification, and to add any qualification is against the rules
So partially on == on
partially on /= off
partially on is fine.
page 17 of this, and the answer is still the same as page 1.
KP - you argued that I had committed 2 fallacies. Hopefully Gorkas explanation of how you are incorrect in this assertion will satisfy you that neither exist.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.
The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then
I'm sorry but your definitions of the words "on" and "off" are just entirely wrong. Please read what I tried to tell you earlier. To expand on what nosferatu1001 has said, qualifiers don't matter.
M-W definition of off:
2
a : so as to be separated from support <rolled to the edge of the table and off> or close contact <blew the lid off> <the handle came off>
Partially on == on
partially on == partially off
partially on /= off
The definition for off and on are VERY specific in the english language. On means supported by, or in contact with. Off means separated from support. If any portion of the model is supported by the table, it is not off the table. It is partially off the table, but not off.
English language says:
Partially on means that the model is on.
Partially on means that the model is not off.
GW says:
The model must move on the table.
Being partially on the table qualifies as being on the table.
You must prove that partially on /= on. Even if part of the model is off of the table, the model is "on" the table because it is being supported, even partially, by the table. Being off is the absence of support from a surface, being even partially supported means that you are not "off" of a surface.
If someone tells you to get off of their property, and you leave one foot on their property, you are still ON their property, and therefore are not off of it.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
i have great mathematical skills
Than do you know Set Theory? If so you've completely skipped over my argument 3 times now, and it makes complete sense. If not you've done the same, but reading it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
so a vehicle that is "on" as you put it can still fire the weapons that are on the vehicle yet clearly off the table?
simply put no. no fabrication needed.
A model must be on the table
by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.
having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.
This is full of contradictory statements. You claim that weapons which are off the table, but part of a model that is partially on the table cannot fire, because the weapons are off the table. You then go on to say "note not partial model." However just beforehand you were restricting the actions of part of the model, hence were considering a partial model (just the weapons that were off the table). And again, saying we're referring to a whole model supports us rather than you: If a part of a whole is on something, the whole is on (thus comes the 'on fire' argument, and my paralelle to being in area terrain). In addition while you are saying that we are considering the model as a whole, you are also saying that since part of the model (partial model) is off the table you aren't on the table.
in addition
by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.
This is entirely false. Again, if a part of a whole is on, the whole is on. Again reference the fire argument as well as the magical physics ruler.
Another point, the rule is that you must be on the table, not that you must be not off the table. So there is no restriction to being off the table, only a requirement that you are on it. This is why the partially on is on argument works. If you were not allowed to be off the table, you would be correct. But since you are only required to be on (which incidentally means you can't be completely off) you can be partially on and still fulfill this requirement.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
I'm almost certain the mods are looking down at this thread, likening it to a bunch of rabid dogs fighting one another in a dank, muddy pit, refusing to shoot the poor dogs and put them out of their misery because it's just too much fun to watch.
Doesn't Insianiak usually lock these things when they become as circular as this one has been for about fifteen pages now (at least)?
Mods are cruel.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
SaintHazard wrote:I'm almost certain the mods are looking down at this thread, likening it to a bunch of rabid dogs fighting one another in a dank, muddy pit, refusing to shoot the poor dogs and put them out of their misery because it's just too much fun to watch. Doesn't Insianiak usually lock these things when they become as circular as this one has been for about fifteen pages now (at least)? Mods are cruel.
But it's just so fun. I mean, lets look at it one more time. We're trying to prove whether the vehicle is on the table. The condition of the vehicle is: DeathReaper wrote:on AND off the table
^Deathreapers own words So, the vehicle is both on and off the table. That is, the vehicle is (on the table) and (off the table). So the vehicle is... On the table and Off the table So, (On the table) is part of our starting set of conditions... and deathreaper admits it. He now sets out to prove that the vehicle cannot possibly be on the table. It's the logical equivilent of: Y is true. Therefore Y must be false. How can you not want to watch that?
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Even the coolest action scene in the world gets stale when you've watched it 15 pages- I mean, times.
Obviously you're correct, and DeathReaper is grasping at nonexistent straws to make his thing vaguely resembling a point.
But the bottom line is that his entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.
He is performing fallacio.
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Even the coolest action scene in the world gets stale when you've watched it 15 pages- I mean, times.
Oh...I don't know about that.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Ail-Shan wrote:Even the coolest action scene in the world gets stale when you've watched it 15 pages- I mean, times.
Oh...I don't know about that.
Set theory, while it looks like it can solve this problem, can not solve it. here is why:
Maybe i should explain it from a different angle.
P3. says that a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.
The model (area of its base) has to be on the table.
If the model (area of its base) is not on the table you have broken the rule since you need to place models on the table.
so this tells us that the area of its base (model) must be on the table.
If the area of its base is not on the table, we have broken RAW.
does anyone understand this?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
DeathReaper wrote:does anyone understand this?
 Some people also understand the actual rules. Thread. . .must. . .die. . . .
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
kirsanth wrote:DeathReaper wrote:does anyone understand this?
Some people also understand the actual rules.
I posted nothing but the actual rules as written.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Here's an interesting piece of linguistics for the thread: off is defined as a negation, as in "the light is not on".
Regardless, yes this thread really need to die.
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper, so far the best been come up with was the game is designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table. What we have is a game with a model stranded at the side of the table: everything works but god damn it's ugly.
Tell you what find and quote something that say "cannot be off the table" and I think every one will agree you are right (bar Gwar he bows to no man). Find something backing up destroying and I'll be bloody amazed.
(edit get the cannot be on/off the right way round ^_^)
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Tri wrote:DeathReaper, so far the best been come up with was the game is designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table. What we have is a game with a model stranded at the side of the table: everything works but god damn it's ugly.
Tell you what find and quote something that say "cannot be off the table" and I think every one will agree you are right (bar Gwar he bows to no man). Find something backing up destroying and I'll be bloody amazed.
(edit get the cannot be on/off the right way round ^_^)
my last post sums up everything.
the area of the base needs to be on the table.
checkmate.
23469
Post by: dayve110
So... RAW... A Baneblade cannot deploy when moving onto the table, as it may only move 6" and will not fit "fully onto" the playing surface if you simply roll it forward. Pivoting around its centre point will not allow you to fit onto the table either so the Baneblade is destroyed. Either that or at it least cannot make that move and sits in reserves until the end of the game, where it counts as destroyed. Or since it has arrived from reserves and cannot be placed we stop the game and try again.
Another example, i have a unit entering the board on a large base. I need to enter at a certain point, the other areas are taken up by other units of impassable terrain. The point i am entering is filled with difficult terrain, so i roll my 2D6 and roll a double 1. I cannot fit all on my bases onto the table (even though all of my bases are partially ON the table) so i am destroyed? delayed? game stops?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
DeathReaper wrote:my last post sums up everything.
In the last post DeathReaper wrote:kirsanth wrote:DeathReaper wrote:does anyone understand this?
Some people also understand the actual rules.
I posted nothing but the actual rules as written.
Gotcha. Now please can we let this thread die? You are wrong and we are fine with that.
19370
Post by: daedalus
DeathReaper wrote:
P3. says that a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.
The model (area of its base) has to be on the table.
If the model (area of its base) is not on the table you have broken the rule since you need to place models on the table.
so this tells us that the area of its base (model) must be on the table.
If the area of its base is not on the table, we have broken RAW.
does anyone understand this?
I don't. Vehicles (which started this silly thread) typically don't have a base. You CAN measure from the hull, assuming you're measuring distance, but that's the only time I've ever seen anything telling you to take the hull into consideration.
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper wrote:
I posted nothing ...
^_^ Ignoring something to help your argument is wrong. There is no must be on the board and definitely no destroy if you cannot get on.
The game was designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table
You must move on from reserve.
If you move through into or leave difficult terrain take dangerous terrain test.
If you fail the DT test you are place just outside the terrain and immobilized
If a model could fall mark the spot (making sure the other player sees) and place it safely on the board replacing it as need.
And the most useful advice that all comes from WMS "Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!" ... in this case i think they would suggest marking out a 6' by 4' rectangle on the floor.
(If you want the exact quotes I'll dig them up but I and other have posted them all before.)
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Tri wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
I posted nothing ...
^_^ Ignoring something to help your argument is wrong. There is no must be on the board and definitely no destroy if you cannot get on.
The game was designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table
You must move on from reserve.
If you move through into or leave difficult terrain take dangerous terrain test.
If you fail the DT test you are place just outside the terrain and immobilized
If a model could fall mark the spot (making sure the other player sees) and place it safely on the board replacing it as need.
And the most useful advice that all comes from WMS "Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!" ... in this case i think they would suggest marking out a 6' by 4' rectangle on the floor.
(If you want the exact quotes I'll dig them up but I and other have posted them all before.)
So even though the area of the base(the model) needs to be on, you are fine with breaking the rules and having it off the table. got it.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
DeathReaper wrote:The same thing again
 This is making my collection of image links useful though, I will give you that. 
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper wrote:So even though the area of the base(the model) needs to be on, you are fine with breaking the rules and having it off the table. got it.
Page 88 "Standard mission were designed to be played on a 6' by 4' gaming surface.": that is the closest that any one has come to a rule yet not finding one. Were it a rule it would use phrases like "are" and "must". Not only that but the fact that other rules clearly have models doing things off the board including the reserve rule. If the reserve rule breaks this non-existing rule once why does it stop?  Right there is no must be on the table. At best there is a must move on and some times models may not make it: dangerous terrain does this for vehicles and Difficult terrain for the others.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...
so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.
a model occupies the area of its base.
therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.
check and mate.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...
so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.
a model occupies the area of its base.
therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.
check and mate.
So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?
Yes or No please.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
DeathReaper wrote: rules
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper wrote:check and mate
Rule One: Reserves. must move on.
Rule Two: Dangerous Terrain Test. immobilized out side the terrain.
Which of these is more specific and so the over ruling rule? Yes The DT Test is the more specific.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...
so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.
a model occupies the area of its base.
therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.
check and mate.
I'd like you to answer both Gwar!'s question and my own. Gwar! wrote:
So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?
Yes or No please.
My own question still revolves around the word "on". On means supported by, or in contact with. For a model to be supported by or in contact with the table, it only needs to be even slightly supported by or barely in contact for it to count. No where in the rules does it say that you can't have portions of the model off of the table. Show me where it does, because that's what your argument is based off of. Reiterating: On, partially or not, means on and therefore qualifies the models position. Are you saying that partially on is not on? If you ignore either of these posts, you prove your argument inherently wrong because you are failing to recognize valid counter-arguments.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...
so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.
a model occupies the area of its base.
therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.
So, under your... 'interperetation'... the reserves rules are completely nonfunctional. Since a model must be entirely on the table at all times (according to this rule you claim exists) and the reserves rule gives no actual permission to break that rule. But wait! You claim you CAN break this rule you claim is so important without strict permission... but then suddenly no longer can after the movement phase ends? I'm just absolutely lost here... you're making no sense at all and breaking your own rules every time you defend your point.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Rephist - dont bother, the same argument has been repeatedly ignored by DR et al for 17 pages now.
DR - you still are (sub?)consciously qualifying all the statements you provide. You are adding words such as "fully" or "entirely" when none such rules exist.
In other words: not only do you not have checkmate, you've actually been playing noughts and crosses on the chess board.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Gwar! wrote:DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...
so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.
a model occupies the area of its base.
therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.
check and mate.
So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?
Yes or No please.
Could not find the baneblade in any of the codex that i have, so i am not sure about that one.
I do not have the necron codex so i am not sure what rules it has. but it can deepstrike yes?
Rephistorch wrote:DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...
so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.
a model occupies the area of its base.
therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.
check and mate.
I'd like you to answer both Gwar!'s question and my own.
Gwar! wrote:
So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?
Yes or No please.
My own question still revolves around the word "on". On means supported by, or in contact with. For a model to be supported by or in contact with the table, it only needs to be even slightly supported by or barely in contact for it to count.
No where in the rules does it say that you can't have portions of the model off of the table. Show me where it does, because that's what your argument is based off of. Reiterating: On, partially or not, means on and therefore qualifies the models position.
Are you saying that partially on is not on?
If you ignore either of these posts, you prove your argument inherently wrong because you are failing to recognize valid counter-arguments.
for sake of argument lest say on is as you say above. However the area of its base must move onto the table.
Area means? the whole base (answered that one for you)
Gorkamorka wrote:DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...
so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.
a model occupies the area of its base.
therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.
So, under your... 'interperetation'... the reserves rules are completely nonfunctional.
Since a model must be entirely on the table at all times (according to this rule you claim exists) and the reserves rule gives no actual permission to break that rule.
But wait! You claim you CAN break this rule you claim is so important without strict permission... but then suddenly no longer can after the movement phase ends?
I'm just absolutely lost here... you're making no sense at all and breaking your own rules every time you defend your point.
I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times. when you end your move the area of the base must be on the table. since reserves say you move the model onto the table.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Rephist - dont bother, the same argument has been repeatedly ignored by DR et al for 17 pages now.
DR - you still are (sub?)consciously qualifying all the statements you provide. You are adding words such as "fully" or "entirely" when none such rules exist.
In other words: not only do you not have checkmate, you've actually been playing noughts and crosses on the chess board.
RAW says a model is considered to take up an area of its base.
ergo the area of the base moves onto the table (area is an inclusive thing)
any other questions?
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
DeathReaper wrote:
Could not find the baneblade in any of the codex that i have, so i am not sure about that one.
I do not have the necron codex so i am not sure what rules it has. but it can deepstrike yes?
Ok for sake of argument, the baneblade is a massive tank, and is more than 6" in every direction. It can only move 6". It can't deepstrike. Can it enter play?
So you're saying that the monolith is forced to enter play in Dawn of War deployment?
DeathReaper wrote:
for sake of argument lest say on is as you say above. However the area of its base must move onto the table.
Area means? the whole base (answered that one for you)
Oh, deathreaper, wrong again. You're doing a lot of things wrong. You're adding words to rulebook that don't exist. (no where does it say, that the area of a models base must be fully on the table)
Area is merely the amount of space a shape takes up on a 2D plane. If any part of the area is on the table, that qualifies that the model is on the table. You are completely ignoring the argument and rephrasing your original argument in hopes that no one will realize that you're not actually disputing that partially on = on. Partially on means that you're not off.
Another mistake: most tanks don't have bases. So this entire thread of logic that you're using where models=base area is irrelevant as not all tanks have bases.
DeathReaper wrote:
I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times. when you end your move the area of the base must be on the table. since reserves say you move the model onto the table.
Again, see above. It does not say: when you finish moving your entire model must be on the table.
DeathReaper wrote:
RAW says a model is considered to take up an area of its base.
ergo the area of the base moves onto the table (area is an inclusive thing)
any other questions?
Again, above. Especially the part about tanks usually not having a base.
Also, "taking up space" and being qualified as on the table are two entirely separate things.
If you can't understand these simple concepts, then I have no hope for you as a competent rules reader/interpreter. Thank you though, I believe you have given me a wonderful idea for a signature. Hopefully you'll see it soon.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Rephistorch wrote:
Ok for sake of argument, the baneblade is a massive tank, and is more than 6" in every direction. It can only move 6". It can't deepstrike. Can it enter play?
So you're saying that the monolith is forced to enter play in Dawn of War deployment?
I couldn't not find the baneblade, what codex is it in?
again, i don't have a necron codex so i can not read the monolith's rules. therefore I can not formulate an opinion on said vehicle.
and P.3 a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.
reserves says when a reserve unit arrives it must move onto the table... each models move is measured from the edge of the battlefield
ergo models must move onto the table
or the area of the base must move onto the table.
(area of the base is the whole thing, not just a part of it)
and tanks don't have bases, thats fine too they use hull instead of base for measurement purposes. one would gather that they use the area of their hull instead of an actual base.
bottom line is that things can not be off the table and in play. if you think that they can then you have fun with that. but it seems it is intended for things to stay on the playing surface (if not, then why have a defined playing surface?)
thank you and goodnight.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
DeathReaper wrote: Gorkamorka wrote: So, under your... 'interperetation'... the reserves rules are completely nonfunctional. Since a model must be entirely on the table at all times (according to this rule you claim exists) and the reserves rule gives no actual permission to break that rule. But wait! You claim you CAN break this rule you claim is so important without strict permission... but then suddenly no longer can after the movement phase ends? I'm just absolutely lost here... you're making no sense at all and breaking your own rules every time you defend your point.
I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times. when you end your move the area of the base must be on the table. since reserves say you move the model onto the table.
... DeathReaper wrote:So you can be off the table and in play then?
You're, yet again, claiming that the opposite of what you've been arguing is true. Apparently in your view models can suddenly be off the table and in play, despite you clearly claiming otherwise quite recently. Apparently showing that your point is entirely ridiculous and makes the basic game unplayable just means you change your entire argument on a dime and keep going. Also... DeathReaper wrote:
I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times
DeathReaper wrote:
The rule that states games are played ON the 6' by 4' table. It says you have to be on the table, and not off the table.
This states you need to be on, not partially on.
you are allowed to be on the table, no rules state you can be partially on/off the table.
...
There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.
...
A model must be on the table
...
If any part of the base is not on the table then that is against the rules.
...
since models must be on the table
I can quote about a dozen more times you did in fact clearly claim exactly that...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DeathReaper wrote:Rephistorch wrote:
Ok for sake of argument, the baneblade is a massive tank, and is more than 6" in every direction. It can only move 6". It can't deepstrike. Can it enter play?
So you're saying that the monolith is forced to enter play in Dawn of War deployment?
I couldn't not find the baneblade, what codex is it in?
It doesnt matter, as you have been told the rules it follows and the dimensions of the tank.
You have a tank thast is MORE than 6" across in all directions, and it may ONLY move 6" a turn. Under you entirely, 10000% incorrect argument you are stating, categorically, that this tank can never arrive from reserves and MUST be destroyed.
Hilarious. Truly, hilarious (see Apocalypse and Imperial Armour Volume 1)
DeathReaper wrote:again, i don't have a necron codex so i can not read the monolith's rules. therefore I can not formulate an opinion on said vehicle.
It is a vehicle just over 6" across (perfect square) and it may only ever move 6" a turn.
Under your rules you are requiring that it either a) always deepstrikes or b) is destroyed when it arrives from reserves by moving on from the edge of the table.
Yes, you can indeed formulate an opinion on both of these situations, as ALL pertinent details have been given to you.
Now please respond to the situations: will you always destroy a Baneblade when it arrives from reserve, or destroy a monolith unless it deepstrikes?
DeathReaper wrote:and P.3 a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.
reserves says when a reserve unit arrives it must move onto the table... each models move is measured from the edge of the battlefield
ergo models must move onto the table
or the area of the base must move onto the table.
(area of the base is the whole thing, not just a part of it)
Bzzzzt! Wrong! STOP adding qualifiers to words, you are MAKING RULES UP out of whole cloth here.
there is NO rule stating the ENTIRE (area of) base must move on. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You are now either lying in the hope we wont spot or too linguistically challenged to understand you are doing it.
DeathReaper wrote:and tanks don't have bases, thats fine too they use hull instead of base for measurement purposes. one would gather that they use the area of their hull instead of an actual base.
What area? The bottom? Nice attempt at trying to shoehorn your area fallacy into this area. Not going to wash though.
DeathReaper wrote:bottom line is that things can not be off the table and in play. if you think that they can then you have fun with that. but it seems it is intended for things to stay on the playing surface (if not, then why have a defined playing surface?)
thank you and goodnight.
Nope, bottom line is that you are making up rules, unwilling to answer perfectly clear questions (So, will you destroy all reserved baneblades?) and cannot admit that you are wrong on this.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
DeathReaper wrote:I couldn't not find the baneblade, what codex is it in?
DeathReaper wrote:I can not formulate an opinion
That's kind of been the trend throughout this thread.
You have no idea what a Baneblade is, you don't have the Necron codex... why are you arguing rules again?
I mean, have you read the rulebook?
Just how deep does this font of ignorance run?
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
Actually I have to support Deathreaper here.
"On table" of course means "fully on table". At least it does not mean "partially on table".
And "on" does not mean "in contact with the surface", it means "above the surface". Otherwise an antigrav tank could never be on table (for the base is effectively ignored, yes that applies to the valkyrie and vendetta too except for measuring ranges, assaults and disembarking).
Concerning Baneblade and Monolith:
Is it a special rule, that a Monolith and Baneblade can only move 6"? Yes it is. So this rule can be ignored in case of arriving from reserves. So it should be able to cruise on the table. (Not flat out of course, because it is not fast).
And how do you handle a vehicle 0,0001" touching the table? and with other reserves going around the vehicle off table? This is ridiculous...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
-Nazdreg- wrote:Actually I have to support Deathreaper here.
"On table" of course means "fully on table". At least it does not mean "partially on table".
[citation needed]
Sorry, y ou are making up rules here. If they had meant FULLY on do you think they would have qualified the otherwise unqualified statement?
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
[citation needed]
Sorry, y ou are making up rules here. If they had meant FULLY on do you think they would have qualified the otherwise unqualified statement?
Yes, they say "on" not "fully on" but they also do not say "partially on". So what is our point here? Throwing stones at enemy models claiming they are dead, because it does not say they are not?
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
The rules say "on."
Are you trying to tell us that "partially on" is not "on?"
Are you also going to try to tell us that an apple that is red, with a green stem, is not red? It's not fully red! CLEARLY IT'S NOT RED AT ALL OH GOD!
(cue universe imploding)
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
Are you trying to tell us that "partially on" is not "on?"
Yes I do. Because "partially on" is " partially on" and not "on".
Are you also going to try to tell us that an apple that is red, with a green stem, is not red?
Yes I do. Because it is not red, but red with a green stem. so if you compare an apple, which is red with your apple, you will discover that there is a difference.
And to make your comparison better: You take a green apple with a red stem and you declare it red?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So you are taking an unqualified statement and qualifying it
[citation needed]
No, seriously. You are taking general permission (be on) and ADDING WORDS TO THIS to make it say "fully on" when it deos not say fully on.
ON is an unqualified requirement that partially ON fully satisfies.
If you disagree then you dont understand how English works.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
If you disagree then you dont understand how English works.
the classical killing argument against foreigners 
well ok maybe it is so. I do not claim to understand the english language better than natives.
But I dont get what a qualified or unqualified requirement has to do with a specific language.
Furthermore I think partially on is the specification and not fully on.
Let me compare it again with the nice example given by SaintHazard:
An apple which is mostly green, but has a red stem is considered red?
Lets do it the other way round.
Yes, the term "on" has no specification in it. But the term "model" or "unit" has. So it is perfectly fine to place just one model of a unit on the table considering a unit on table? Then next time I will bring only one meltagunner over a flank because the whole squad would not fit there to shoot a vehicles back...
Ah yes, the rest of the unit is considered behind the meltagunner and can therefore move in next turn? Mhm... nice thing to try.
Ah yes and I bring the chimera 0,001" from the flank to avoid being shot at side armour from almost every angle. Great too...
OK maybe I am wrong concerning the english language, but I think I am not wrong concerning the problems your rule interpretation causes (physically too: how do you place your model?) and balancing and how it contradicts itself.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It does not contradict itself.
"On" is an unqualified statement, ie as loing as you are on at all you are 100% in support of this rule.
As to your argumetns about other members of the unit - please reread through this thread, they have been answered about 10 times now.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
-Nazdreg- wrote:If you disagree then you dont understand how English works.
the classical killing argument against foreigners
If you would like to know why partially on means on please see the link (on the word "on") in my signature. The definition of the word is: supported by, or in contact with. If the model is supported in any way, or if any part of it is in contact with the table, then it is defined as being on the table in the English language. Conversely, the definition of the word off is: not supported by, or in contact with. If a model is supported in any way, or if it is even slightly in contact with the table's surface, then it can not be off of the table. This leads us to the conclusions that models can be on the table, even when they're not entirely on the table, and being on the table at all, means that you are not off of the table. Please let me know if any of that was unclear.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Or, to once again have to use this image:
Is the ruler "on" or "off" the table.
ONE WORD ANSWER! Don't try and add qualifications when there are not any or bring in "partially". I am not asking that.
All I am asking for is one word, Is it "on" or "off"?
Answer that, and you answer this thread.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Gwar! wrote:All I am asking for is one word, Is it "on" or "off"?
Answer that, and you answer this thread.
It is simpler than that. Is it "on", yes or no? If you want to get all cat in a box and argue it is neither or both or somesuch; as long as you can say "yes" to the on part, it is on.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
The definition of the word is: supported by, or in contact with. If the model is supported in any way, or if any part of it is in contact with the table, then it is defined as being on the table in the English language.
Conversely, the definition of the word off is: not supported by, or in contact with. If a model is supported in any way, or if it is even slightly in contact with the table's surface, then it can not be off of the table.
This leads us to the conclusions that models can be on the table, even when they're not entirely on the table, and being on the table at all, means that you are not off of the table.
This is a one sided argumentation. Allow me to do it the other way round, using your words and your logic:
The definition of the word off is: not supported by, or in contact with. If a model is not supported in any way, or if any part of it is even slightly not in contact with the table's surface, it is off table
Conversely the definition of the word on is: supported by, or in contact with. If the model is not supported in any way, or if any part of it is not in contact with the table, then it can not be on the table in the English language.
This leads us to the conclusions that models can be off the table when they're not entirely off the table, and being off the table at all, means that you are not on the table.
So we can define that a model is on the table and off the table at the same time if it is partially on / partially off the table.
Supporting was the word I looked for as I said something about "above the surface". And in contact with the surface means that it is supported by the surface. So we have parts who are not supported and therefore not on the table.
That means that the model is partially off table and therefore off table.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
-Nazdreg- wrote:That means that the model is partially off table and therefore off table.
No, it is partially off.
Partially on is on. Partially off is NOT off. If it was off, then it couldn't be on.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
Gwar; the partially on is easily disputed by partially off is off.
For my part I'm still seeing both sides as having equal measure for being correct here. Drop Pods as an example have a mishap table for falling off the board; what is lacking here is a defined rule set on approaching the particular issue. I'd 4+ it until something more defined comes along.
I was actually going to take a picture of that hammer/ruler trick WITH a Leman Russ, but I get slapped for mentioning the Valkyrie on a local forum and now can't post there ((yes, used the Valk and its enormous size to show how if it could only move six it would not be on; I guess I would have been okay if I used the Baneblade as an example there haha)).
Locally; the players want the Valkyrie to move 12" so that it is ENTIRELY on the board with its wings and tailbooms not hanging over the edge. If this is the case with the players than a tank SHOULD be destroyed if it can not make it on. Cause to me it would not make sense that a wing that is in the air can't be over the edge but a tank can float there on "imagined ground".
But then you run into the problem of not just super heavies, flyers or titans; but even your basic Land Raider would have trouble coming in on reserves with out having to spend a turn sideways IF it can fit sideways where you want it to come in as well.
One thing we do have to remember is that GW is far from infallible ((heh, spell checker kept changing it to say they were inflatable)); and we often have to make corrections between friends on how to make it fair for all present. And there are plenty of other occurrences in this game with defined rules where such an event as a tank getting immobilized off the board and not having the room to be deployed the model would be destroyed/removed. Disembarking is one of those rules that stings me time to time as I play heavy mechanized; though I'm going to have to look into that again now because I read somewhere in this thread that if its your own model that is blocking an exit point that they don't die if there's no room for them.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Dracheous wrote:Gwar; the partially on is easily disputed by partially off is off.
No, it isn't.
You cannot be "Partially off" without being "Partially on". If you are Partially off without being partially on, then you are not partially off, you are just off.
However, Partially on is still on, no matter how much is on.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
Partially on is on. Partially off is NOT off.
OK perhaps "off" is not the same as "not on". But are you telling me that no parts of the vehicle are "not on" the table (which would require the vehicle to be "not on" the table)?
Off seems to be a more qualified thing as On then.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
Gwar; that is an incorrect statement.
par·tial·ly (pärsh-l)
adv.
To a degree; not totally.
Adv. 1. partially - in part; in some degree; not wholly; "I felt partly to blame"; "He was partially paralyzed"
The ruler picture as an example is not totally on the table; nor is its support from the table entirely. There is a combination of forces through cantilevering pressure that holds the ruler. But while the ruler is not entirely on the table, it is not entirely off the table. Approx 95% of the ruler is not on the table; and approx 75% of the force which supports it is not from the table either. So in both cases there is more support from OFF the table than ON the table and thus more of it would be off the table, in which case I can say that a greater portion of that ruler is OFF the table and thus it is in part off the table; To which I can simply using the word partially as to a degree, and not entirely the ruler is not on that table.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
What?
We are not talking about forces or stuff like that.
5% is on the table. Therefore it is on the table.
It cannot be OFF the table, because if it was off the table, then 0% would be on the table. Since >0% is on the table, it is on the table.
It's not hard.
I also notice that, ONCE AGAIN, people have ignored my request for a one word answer.
26794
Post by: zeshin
Having lurked on this thread for 19 pages (My brain meats...they hurt) I too would like the opposition to the "on" crowd to answer Gwar!'s question.
Also where did the word "off" come from? The criteria is to move the models "on" the table. Our options then are that the model be "on" the table legally or "not on" the table and therefore not legally placed. The model is therefore either on the table or not on the table. It cannot both "be" and "not be" in a particular state. Off is not a state in regards to the deployment rules, it is the absence of a state which is "on" the board.
So the model (or the ruler), is it on the board or not on the board?
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.
Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!
I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.
Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Mahtamori wrote:I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.
Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!
I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.
Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)
here ya go mah, ill give you the citations you are looking for.
P.94 under Arriving from reserve. a unit must move onto the table. each models move...
P.92 tells you how to deploy models at the start of a game. (in the deployment zone)
P.3 under measuring distances. a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.
the rules for being off the table are non-existent (except for deep strike, and falling back.) this is probably because everything references being on the table.
to sum up:
The models must move onto the table. or, as GW puts it:
The area of a models base must move onto the table.
if the area of the base is not on the table the must move onto the table has not been followed.
and gwar again that is not a simple yes or no question (and really has no relevance on the discussion)
and a baneblade is apoc, were not talking about apoc.
as for the Monolith, it can deepstrike.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.
Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.
Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.
I answered the question.
it is partially on and partially off the table.
the area of that rulers base is not on the table.
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper wrote:SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.
Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.
I answered the question.
it is partially on and partially off the table.
the area of that rulers base is not on the table.
and it matters that it is partially off why?
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
5% is on the table. Therefore it is on the table.
It cannot be OFF the table, because if it was off the table, then 0% would be on the table.
Again I turn your sentences around:
95% are off the table. Therefore it is off the table.
It cannot be ON the table, because if it was on the table, then 0% would be off the table.
Lets do it logical.
We have two opposites here. On the table and Off the table.
Off the table requires 0% of the model being on the table.
Therefore to justify the opposition On the table has to require 0% of the model off the table.
Easy, isn't it? Easy and simple.
Now we have the situation, where a model is partially on/partially off the table.
that means, that this model do not fulfil any of these requirements. It is neither off the table, nor on the table.
But it is certainly "not on" the table. It is also "not off" the table.
getting back to the rules:
We require the model to move onto the table (which implies it being on the table after the movement, Mahmatori).
And we require the model to be off the table in order to possibly be destroyed.
Therefore the model cannot legally be placed, and it cannot be destroyed because it is in fact not off the table and so it is actually in play, but just not legally placed.
My opinion again (as I think that there is no rule to solve this properly):
1. Avoid the problem if possible
2. Houserule it if necessary
moving it 0,0001" on the table declaring this a legal move brings too many problems:
-measuring distances to parts of the vehicle that are off the table
-moving reserves around the vehicle off the table afterwards
-allowing to move voluntarily like that (I like my russes moved like that with just the front armour on the board. I have 72" range anyways, you wont get any side armour and I will not take any space on the board.)
-physical placement of the model (ah you have the hammer construction handy? ok I wait until you did this properly and then call shenanigans for abusing time in a tournament and for all to have a good laugh... )
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Tri wrote:DeathReaper wrote:SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.
Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.
I answered the question.
it is partially on and partially off the table.
the area of that rulers base is not on the table.
and it matters that it is partially off why?
the silly ruler pic has no bearing on the discussion, thats why it matters.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
DeathReaper wrote:SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.
Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.
I answered the question. it is partially on and partially off the table. the area of that rulers base is not on the table.
You didn't answer my question. Please, a simple YES or NO. ONE WORD. Is the ruler on the table? Yes, or No. A Simple one word answer please. It cannot be both, it has to be one or the other. If it is on, then it is not off. If it is off, then it is not on. Please DeathReaper, this is the 3rd or 4th time now, it's not a hard question. Yes, or No? If the ruler offends you so much, replace "Ruler" with "Baneblade" or "Monolith" in the same position as the ruler.
6769
Post by: Tri
DeathReaper wrote:Tri wrote:DeathReaper wrote:SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.
Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.
I answered the question.
it is partially on and partially off the table.
the area of that rulers base is not on the table.
and it matters that it is partially off why?
the silly ruler pic has no bearing on the discussion, thats why it matters.
No answer the question. Why does it matter if a model is partially off?
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
@Gwar!
Your ruler is not on the table. Period. (If you want it simple)
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Nazdreg, the trouble with turning the sentence around is that it doesn't make sense. While, with 95% of the model off the table, the majority of the model is off the table, it is still on the table (as a similar comparison if only a part of you is in an illegal area, you are still in the illegal area. An example provided earlier was being only partially on the grass when your dad told you to keep off, he'll still consider you to be on the grass).
The reason why the phrase only works one way is because of the above. If you are partially on the table, you are satisfying being on the table. However, in order to be off the table, there must be no part of you that's on the table.
And the ruler actually is on the table, as a part of it is on the table.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
@Ail-Shan
That means that off the table is not an opposite to on the table.
If this is not the case turning around works. You just seem to not want the third possibility.
as a similar comparison if only a part of you is in an illegal area, you are still in the illegal area. An example provided earlier was being only partially on the grass when your dad told you to keep off, he'll still consider you to be on the grass
Is off the table an illegal area? Yes...
Your tank is partially off the table? so you are partially in an illegal area and then you are in the illegal area.
The reason why the phrase only works one way is because of the above. If you are partially on the table, you are satisfying being on the table. However, in order to be off the table, there must be no part of you that's on the table.
This makes no sense to me. Well perhaps english just isnt logical. Maybe.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
DeathReaper wrote:Mahtamori wrote:I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.
Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!
I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.
Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)
here ya go mah, ill give you the citations you are looking for.
P.94 under Arriving from reserve. a unit must move onto the table. each models move...
P.92 tells you how to deploy models at the start of a game. (in the deployment zone)
P.3 under measuring distances. a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.
the rules for being off the table are non-existent (except for deep strike, and falling back.) this is probably because everything references being on the table.
to sum up:
The models must move onto the table. or, as GW puts it:
The area of a models base must move onto the table.
if the area of the base is not on the table the must move onto the table has not been followed.
and gwar again that is not a simple yes or no question (and really has no relevance on the discussion)
and a baneblade is apoc, were not talking about apoc.
as for the Monolith, it can deepstrike.
It's all irrelevant since I got the answer I wanted, but I'd just like to point out that you actually referenced page 92...
In either case, I highlighted and underlined and put the relevant information in your post in italic.
That's right, the rules do not cover it. Therefore, if you follow the rules and end up in a situation where you have a part of the model outside the table, the rules are permissive and you have followed them - therefore the situation is acceptable.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Off is not always the logical negation of on, tghat is perhaps where you are going wrong.
You can be partially on; despite being partially "on", and therefore "on" as far as the rules are concerned, you are not "off" - because you are partially on.
while partiually on == on, for a given value of "on" (i.e. an unqualified one - note, DR would have you believe that "on" is qualified with the words "fully" or "entirely" - this is technically a lie) partially on /== off, as you have to be 100% "off" before you are actually "off" - at least as far as English AND maths AND logic are concerned.
This is what DR is ignoring, in the hope we will all go away. It isnt working, however.
Nazdreg - the ruler is ON the table, as it is 100% supported by tghe table. If you remove the tbale it falls., That gives you your answer.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
-Nazdreg- wrote:@Gwar!
Your ruler is not on the table. Period. (If you want it simple)
So how is it staying up? If it were not on the table, it would be on the floor (presumably) because the table isn't holding it up...
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
Nazdreg - the ruler is ON the table, as it is 100% supported by tghe table. If you remove the tbale it falls., That gives you your answer.
What about removing the hammer?
so I can glue some things UNDER the table and declare them being ON the table, because the table holds them there? And do not argue with the glue...
But ok lets get beyond theory.
Off is not always the logical negation of on.
If this is the case, I move my opinion of your interpretation from "incorrect" up to "correct but impracticable". See my list of problems.
But I stay with the opinion: Avoid the situation...
same as closing an edge to negate reserves unless it is houseruled in any ways.
32598
Post by: BloodThirSTAR
Wow this thread has gone from bad to much worse. It's really getting super flamey in here.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
I apologize if a am flamey. I just want a playable possibility to work this problem out.
I do not intend to flame against people. I am only questioning an interpretation and it seems that I had a wrong starting point. I am perfectly ok with this.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
-sigh-
Look, if it isn't on the table, then it is on the floor, not on the table.
It's not that difficult.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It is not ON the table, it is UNDER the table - it is supported by the glkue, which is supported by the table.
If you review your list of "issues" you will find that a) they arent issues at all and b) they have ALL already been dealt with - I was serious when I asked you to review the last 19 pages. Everything you have posited has been proven incorrect multiple times now.
DR - so you are answering that you would ALWAYS destroy a Monolith if it doesnt deepstrike? LOL! I love your inabiltiy to provide rules quotes that actually back up tyhat assertion. Making up stuff must be quite fun!
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
I was serious when I asked you to review the last 19 pages.
And I seriously went through them. I discovered some things, but nevertheless I don't consider this option playable.
Its a theoretical solution and can be used abusive to no balance at all.
But if you let me abuse it, it is ok
22882
Post by: Ail-Shan
Is off the table an illegal area? Yes...
Actually no. Being off the table means you are not fulfilling the requirement of being on the table. If you read entirely through the BRB, you will find absolutely no reference saying that off the table is illegal, only that on the table is required (or at least "the game is designed to be played on").
As for off not being the reverse of on, that is true so long as there are only 2 option (the light is on or off for example).
I don't consider this option playable
I wouldn't say that it is unplayable, but annoying at least. Therefore were it to ever come up I'd make some house ruling on it (along the lines of just put the thing fully on the table and immobilize it there).
Well perhaps english just isnt logical.
This made me laugh. I agree with it.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Nazdreg = exactly what dont you consider playable?
You must bring the entire unit at least partially on the board, so that isnt an issue. You can still shoot at a vehicle partially "on" the board just fine, etc.
No issues have been found with playability so far, in contrst to the "unit is destroyed!" crowd who, with no rules or precedental backing consider the unit to be destroyed if it cannot get fully ontopt he table (and again, with DR et al entirely ignoring that they are lying when they say it must be fully on the table. Lying is accurate as the words "fully", "entirely" or any other qualification of the phrase "on" is EVER given)
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:It is not ON the table, it is UNDER the table - it is supported by the glkue, which is supported by the table.
If you review your list of "issues" you will find that a) they arent issues at all and b) they have ALL already been dealt with - I was serious when I asked you to review the last 19 pages. Everything you have posited has been proven incorrect multiple times now.
DR - so you are answering that you would ALWAYS destroy a Monolith if it doesnt deepstrike? LOL! I love your inabiltiy to provide rules quotes that actually back up tyhat assertion. Making up stuff must be quite fun!
I said nothing of the sort, i just simply said that you deploy it or keep it in reserve and deepstrike it.
to move it so that it is off the table is an illegal placement considering models (or area of the base) have to move onto the table.
since its a vehicle the area of the base should be the parts that touch the table.
the area of the base must be moved onto the table. that means that the whole base must be on the table.
the semantics of the word on have no relevance since the area of the base needs to be... (the area of the base includes every portion of said base.)
Ail-Shan wrote:Is off the table an illegal area? Yes...
Actually no. Being off the table means you are not fulfilling the requirement of being on the table. If you read entirely through the BRB, you will find absolutely no reference saying that off the table is illegal, only that on the table is required (or at least "the game is designed to be played on").
As for off not being the reverse of on, that is true so long as there are only 2 option (the light is on or off for example).
and thus an illegal area...
Mahtamori wrote:DeathReaper wrote:Mahtamori wrote:I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.
Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!
I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.
Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)
here ya go mah, ill give you the citations you are looking for.
P.94 under Arriving from reserve. a unit must move onto the table. each models move...
P.92 tells you how to deploy models at the start of a game. (in the deployment zone)
P.3 under measuring distances. a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.
the rules for being off the table are non-existent (except for deep strike, and falling back.) this is probably because everything references being on the table.
to sum up:
The models must move onto the table. or, as GW puts it:
The area of a models base must move onto the table.
if the area of the base is not on the table the must move onto the table has not been followed.
and gwar again that is not a simple yes or no question (and really has no relevance on the discussion)
and a baneblade is apoc, were not talking about apoc.
as for the Monolith, it can deepstrike.
It's all irrelevant since I got the answer I wanted, but I'd just like to point out that you actually referenced page 92...
In either case, I highlighted and underlined and put the relevant information in your post in italic.
That's right, the rules do not cover it. Therefore, i f you follow the rules and end up in a situation where you have a part of the model outside the table[i][u], the rules are permissive and you have followed them - therefore the situation is acceptable.
and I highlighted and underlined and put the relevant information in your post in italic.
since this is impossible, since you can not have a part of the model outside the table. See the part where you move the area of the base onto the table? if any area of the base is not on the table then it is an illegal placement.
I referenced p.92 for completeness. since it covers deployment. and being in the deployment area.
and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
DeathReaper wrote:and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.
Yes, it is a simple yes or no. Several other people have been able to answer this (some correctly, some incorrectly). So, please, once again, answer YES or NO. If you cannot even answer a simple Yes or No Question, why are we bothering to listen to your arguments on this?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
-Nazdreg- wrote:
Again I turn your sentences around:
Even if it were true it does not help your case.
Asked if the model is on, you are answering it is off, while aknowledging it is on as well.
Nothing in the rules that matter care if anything is off.
Only if they are on.
This is why the ruler, the fire, and the wife matter.
And trying to say "yes" can be "no" doesn't matter at all.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Gwar! wrote:DeathReaper wrote:and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.
Yes, it is a simple yes or no. Several other people have been able to answer this (some correctly, some incorrectly).
So, please, once again, answer YES or NO.
If you cannot even answer a simple Yes or No Question, why are we bothering to listen to your arguments on this?
for simplicity's sake lets say the ruler is 'on' the table. that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because the BRB states the area of the base must be on the table.
If the area (remember when dealing with an area we must take all parts of said area into account) is not moved onto the table then you have broken the rules.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
DeathReaper wrote:Gwar! wrote:DeathReaper wrote:and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.
Yes, it is a simple yes or no. Several other people have been able to answer this (some correctly, some incorrectly).
So, please, once again, answer YES or NO.
If you cannot even answer a simple Yes or No Question, why are we bothering to listen to your arguments on this?
for simplicity's sake lets say the ruler is 'on' the table. that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because the BRB states the area of the base must be on the table.
If the area (remember when dealing with an area we must take all parts of said area into account) is not moved onto the table then you have broken the rules.
That is more than one word...
Do you speak English? I am not asking a hard question.
31177
Post by: Rephistorch
Gwar! wrote:DeathReaper wrote:Gwar! wrote:DeathReaper wrote:and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.
Yes, it is a simple yes or no. Several other people have been able to answer this (some correctly, some incorrectly).
So, please, once again, answer YES or NO.
If you cannot even answer a simple Yes or No Question, why are we bothering to listen to your arguments on this?
for simplicity's sake lets say the ruler is 'on' the table. that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because the BRB states the area of the base must be on the table.
If the area (remember when dealing with an area we must take all parts of said area into account) is not moved onto the table then you have broken the rules.
That is more than one word...
Do you speak English? I am not asking a hard question.
Don't worry, he's already invalidated his argument by answering the question and saying that it's on. Now let's just back away slowly so as not to startle him.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
And by THAT rule set; I can drive off the table and back on so long as PART of the model has room to stay on.
Ie. A solid building making an "alley" 2" wide along the board edge, I can now easily drive my tank through there. Because it is partially on.
I'm loving this rule set; where did the sarcasm ork go?
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Dracheous wrote:And by THAT rule set; I can drive off the table and back on so long as PART of the model has room to stay on.
Ie. A solid building making an "alley" 2" wide along the board edge, I can now easily drive my tank through there. Because it is partially on.
I'm loving this rule set; where did the sarcasm ork go?
ChrisCP wrote:Ah, so you're trying to voluntarily place/move a model off the board, well find a rule saying you can do that then sure
6769
Post by: Tri
Dracheous wrote:And by THAT rule set; I can drive off the table and back on so long as PART of the model has room to stay on.
Ie. A solid building making an "alley" 2" wide along the board edge, I can now easily drive my tank through there. Because it is partially on.
I'm loving this rule set; where did the sarcasm ork go?
Till Feburary this year it was ok to leave the board completely. Then GW add the FAQ and ... Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played
clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers
know that the edge of the table is the end of the
world!
... Which is still not 'no models may be off' but does bar them from leaving once they're on. We could have another 5-10 pages debating what counts as moving off. In this case I would keep it simple: if you are on the table, you cannot move even partially off as you would be moving off the table. If you are off (partially or fully) the table you may move more on, or not move.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DeathReaper wrote:
I said nothing of the sort, i just simply said that you deploy it or keep it in reserve and deepstrike it.
So you are stating that you would force the Necron player to ALWAYS deepsrike if he wants to keep it in reserve?
Really? You dont see that you are illegally removing a deployment option from the necron player?
DeathReaper wrote:to move it so that it is off the table is an illegal placement considering models (or area of the base) have to move onto the table.
Thats fine, except the model isnt movingt OFF the table. Partially on /== Off. You have been shown how this is true:
Linguistically
Mathematically
Logically
Yet still you persist in trying to say black is white. It is VERY impressive that you will stick to your guns in spite of people who understand not only rules but the English language as well disagreeing with you. Ostrich technique so far.
DeathReaper wrote:since its a vehicle the area of the base should be the parts that touch the table.
CITATION NEEDED.
Please provide rules stating this.
DeathReaper wrote:the area of the base must be moved onto the table. that means that the whole base must be on the table.
CITATION NEEDED
Please provide rules stating the ENTIRE area of the base must be moved onto the table. You have consistently failed to do so.
DeathReaper wrote:the semantics of the word on have no relevance since the area of the base needs to be... (the area of the base includes every portion of said base.)
BZZZT wrong, see above.
Face it DR: you argument falls flat because you are adding words to the rules in order to "prove" your argument. Qualifying an unrestricted statement like "on" by adding fully / entirely / etc is WRONG. Changing tactic suddenly and deciding that, just because a model is defined as occupying the area of their base, that somehow this alters the rules for reserves - because you are still utterly unable to STOP adding words to rules. Here you are adding words to state the entire area of the base must be on, despite no such rule existing.
And lastly the HILARITY where you ENTIRELY make up rules regarding vehicles, arbitrarily deciding that everything that touches the table must be on the tbale, presumably to try to pretend your initial argument (all of the hull must be on the table, impossible for 3D structures) never happened.
Seriously - either you are an incompetent troll or you cannot understand plain and simple rules. Not sure which.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
I said nothing of the sort, i just simply said that you deploy it or keep it in reserve and deepstrike it.
So you are stating that you would force the Necron player to ALWAYS deepsrike if he wants to keep it in reserve?
Really? You dont see that you are illegally removing a deployment option from the necron player?
DeathReaper wrote:to move it so that it is off the table is an illegal placement considering models (or area of the base) have to move onto the table.
Thats fine, except the model isnt movingt OFF the table. Partially on /== Off. You have been shown how this is true:
Linguistically
Mathematically
Logically
Yet still you persist in trying to say black is white. It is VERY impressive that you will stick to your guns in spite of people who understand not only rules but the English language as well disagreeing with you. Ostrich technique so far.
DeathReaper wrote:since its a vehicle the area of the base should be the parts that touch the table.
CITATION NEEDED.
Please provide rules stating this.
DeathReaper wrote:the area of the base must be moved onto the table. that means that the whole base must be on the table.
CITATION NEEDED
Please provide rules stating the ENTIRE area of the base must be moved onto the table. You have consistently failed to do so.
DeathReaper wrote:the semantics of the word on have no relevance since the area of the base needs to be... (the area of the base includes every portion of said base.)
BZZZT wrong, see above.
Face it DR: you argument falls flat because you are adding words to the rules in order to "prove" your argument. Qualifying an unrestricted statement like "on" by adding fully / entirely / etc is WRONG. Changing tactic suddenly and deciding that, just because a model is defined as occupying the area of their base, that somehow this alters the rules for reserves - because you are still utterly unable to STOP adding words to rules. Here you are adding words to state the entire area of the base must be on, despite no such rule existing.
And lastly the HILARITY where you ENTIRELY make up rules regarding vehicles, arbitrarily deciding that everything that touches the table must be on the tbale, presumably to try to pretend your initial argument (all of the hull must be on the table, impossible for 3D structures) never happened.
Seriously - either you are an incompetent troll or you cannot understand plain and simple rules. Not sure which.
First citation:
If you notice i said SHOULD
since its a vehicle the area of the base should be the parts that touch the table.
I.E. the base is the part of a model that supports the rest of the model.
thats just logic.
Second citation:
P.94
Arriving from reserves: when a unit arrives it must move onto the table. Each models move is...
P.3
Measuring distances: a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.
so we have established that models move onto the table from p. 94, and models cover a specific area P.3
put them together and we have
each model in a given unit moves onto the board. or move the area of its base onto the board.
Please find out what area means, then talk to me again.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Please find out what ONTO means, and talk to us ALL again.
Does onto mean fully onto? If you move part of the base onto the board you have moved the model onto the board.
Does area require ALL of the area of the base? No?
Well amazing, you're still adding words to rules
Edit: just noticed your "logic" idea. Lol, you have NO idea what you're talking about.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:Please find out what ONTO means, and talk to us ALL again.
Does onto mean fully onto? If you move part of the base onto the board you have moved the model onto the board.
Does area require ALL of the area of the base? No?
Well amazing, you're still adding words to rules
Edit: just noticed your "logic" idea. Lol, you have NO idea what you're talking about.
Not adding a single word, the words the BRB uses does it all.
lets see, the area of the base needs to be on the table.
that is easy to understand. the area of the base (the area includes the whole base) must move onto the table.
Simple really.
it seems you are the one that is trying to refute this, and you have been proven wrong logically.
Thank you and goodnight.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
You are still adding "fully" onto in order to justify your stance
As you have been told 100 times now, you cant do this.
Nothing requires that the ENTIRE area of the base is on (to) the table - you have simply made that up. Your (the area includes the whole base) is simply making up rules that dont exist.
But carry on, you are convinced youre right, everyone else who can actually READ the rules and avoid adding words is actually correct. You're wrong, and I think you even realise it, but seem to thinkl you will "save face" by continuing to argue an untenable position.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
Tri wrote:
... Which is still not 'no models may be off' but does bar them from leaving once they're on. We could have another 5-10 pages debating what counts as moving off. In this case I would keep it simple: if you are on the table, you cannot move even partially off as you would be moving off the table. If you are off (partially or fully) the table you may move more on, or not move.
First I think its slowed to go this route; HOWEVER, by the logic that partially off is still on, you would NOT be breaking that FAQ ruling. Because the tracks of the tank, ((or wheels, etc etc etc)) are still touching the board by a fraction and thus only partially off and thus still "on."
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except you are not given permission to move off the board, you can only move off when told you can (permissive ruleset)
24251
Post by: Dracheous
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you are not given permission to move off the board, you can only move off when told you can (permissive ruleset)
But then are you off the table if you are partially off?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, but you are moving off. Where is your permission to do so?
24251
Post by: Dracheous
I would not moving off the table as I would still be partially on and that is still on. So I would be navigating the table using the "partially on is still on" and "partially off is still on" explanations that is being used to say that a tank is not destroyed coming in.
Remember Nos, I think be able to drive along the edge is slowed. But the problem is, to allow the tank to survive because it is "partially off is still on" would open up a huge can of worms with people who have far more time than I to lawyer rules into finding some nice cheesy ways to get advantages.
BUT if the partially off is still on was a written ruleset, then a model COULD do exactly what I am suggesting when in its movement phase.
Where is the rule that states must be "fully" on?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
That was the point - reserves allows you to move across the edge of the board, and does not require you to move fully on
You however have not shown any permission to be able to move partially off. Without permission to move partially off you cannot do so.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
nosferatu1001 wrote:That was the point - reserves allows you to move across the edge of the board, and does not require you to move fully on
You however have not shown any permission to be able to move partially off. Without permission to move partially off you cannot do so.
Sorry but you're adding words there to the FAQ; it did not say partially off it said "off" and off would ONLY be 100% off. By this threads argument.
6769
Post by: Tri
Reserves you are just asked to move on. There for you can be any degree of on. 100% down so long as its great then 0%.
General moving you cannot move off the table. There for whenever you move your ending percentage (on the board) must be greater or equal to your starting percentage (on the board) because if its less that would mean you are moving off the board.
The two rules together so that you can be place 100% off the board and move on.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
Tri wrote:Reserves you are just asked to move on. There for you can be any degree of on. 100% down so long as its great then 0%.
General moving you cannot move off the table. There for whenever you move your ending percentage (on the board) must be greater or equal to your starting percentage (on the board) because if its less that would mean you are moving off the board.
The two rules together so that you can be place 100% off the board and move on.
But WHERE is that written in the rules concerning reserves moving on? And if it is only based on the argument that partially on is still on; then the same argument CAN be made about moving board edge because you are in fact still moving ON the board as per the understanding that partially on is still on the table.
Look, its the EXACT same argument you are making. In fact, no one's been able to tell me yes or no if the model is in fact on or off the board if the vehicle drives along side the table edge. And if it IS "off" then so too would the reserve tank trying to get in. If it is "on" than so too would the reserve tank trying to get in.
Its a flawed argument that has no equal and opposite reactions.
6769
Post by: Tri
You can move on any degree as that is moving on.
If you move off by any degree you've broke the rule not to move off.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
Ah, but the FAQ does not state "fully" or "partially"; nor does the rule set on entering the game play.
So if it is extrapolated that when moving OFF it can not be partially, at what point are we able to make the assumption that the opposite is correct with the same sentence structure for moving on?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
You have yet to show permission that allows you to move off the board, even partially.
Reserves ONLY CARES ABOUT MOVING ON because that is what therule says: you move onto.
Moving in general does NOT give you permission to move off, or even partially OFF, the board - so again: please show permission to move even partially OFF the board.
6769
Post by: Tri
Dracheous wrote:Ah, but the FAQ does not state "fully" or "partially"; nor does the rule set on entering the game play.
So if it is extrapolated that when moving OFF it can not be partially, at what point are we able to make the assumption that the opposite is correct with the same sentence structure for moving on?
No it doesn't because that doesn't matter. 1)There is no rule that says you cannot be off the board Or that a model must be on. 2) A model half on the board is both on and off. 3) For Reserves a model must move on. To for fill that the model must at least move partially on. 4) In general when moving a model cannot move off the table. (This is where i can see people having problems) If a models can found to be less on the board then when it started, this would mean the model is moving off and any degree of moving off is breaking the rule.
24251
Post by: Dracheous
nosferatu1001 wrote:You have yet to show permission that allows you to move off the board, even partially.
Reserves ONLY CARES ABOUT MOVING ON because that is what therule says: you move onto.
Moving in general does NOT give you permission to move off, or even partially OFF, the board - so again: please show permission to move even partially OFF the board.
You're adding that part to the rules; it does not state partially or fully in the FAQ. Please, show me where it states that partially is included.
So again; why is it your SAME argument FOR a tank to survive being off in limbo; beyond the END OF THE WORLD as we all are to treat it not apply to the SAME tank driving the opposite way.
This argument is doomed to go in circles; as far as I'm concerned if you failed to make it onto the table from the reserves the vehicle is lost; either it didn't get the right GPS units and drove the wrong way; got hung up outside the board where it was unable to affect the game. Or the driver just went and an hero'd himself.
The problem is that if I make the exact same argument you guys are making, and it IS the exact same argument you say it is wrong to view it that way. Because in BOTH cases "partially" and "fully" are words being added to the written rules for either side of the debate.
As for showing you permission to drive FULLY off the table; I needs none because I am not trying to do this. Showing you permission to drive partially off the table, well you gave it to me when you state that partially on is still on. As I would like to see the written rule saying that you CAN cantilever over the end of the world. Again, doomed to go in circles and thus best dealt with as a 4+ unless a friendly game where likely just let the thing on but immobilized at the table edge.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Dracheous wrote:Ah, but the FAQ does not state "fully" or "partially"; nor does the rule set on entering the game play.
So if it is extrapolated that when moving OFF it can not be partially, at what point are we able to make the assumption that the opposite is correct with the same sentence structure for moving on?
Moving on is explicitely allowed, and in fact required with reserves. During this allowance/requirement moving involving "off" is not disallowed, or every single non- DS model is destroyed by moving on. Moving off is explictely disallowed, even partially--when not moving on. (Moving onto the table is more specific than "moving") This distinction is really not confusing. To move on, the model must be (at least partially) off, to move off, the model must be (at least partially) on. To "move on" does not require 100%. To say otherwise is actually distorting the truth. To "move off" does not require 100%. To say otherwise is actually distorting the truth. They do not, however, apply at the same time. When off the table and moving on, a model is moving on. When on the table and moving off, a model is moving off. When a model is doing either, it is not doing both, but may very well end its move in a state where both "off" and "on" apply. The restriction in the rules is for how you move there, not on how you end there. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dracheous wrote:You're adding that part to the rules; it does not state partially or fully in the FAQ. Please, show me where it states that partially is included.
Been covered, the onus is on proving that being on requires 100% (See: fire, wife, ruler, English, etc.)
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dracheous - and now you are repeating what was fully covered in the previous 20 pages.
"onto" is not a qualified statement; therefore BOTH partially AND fully onto the table both satisfy this requirement.
Also, if you will pay attention, I have not referenced the FAQ. I am simply asking you: show me permission to move even partially Off the table.
Still waiting.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still adding "fully" onto in order to justify your stance
As you have been told 100 times now, you cant do this.
Nothing requires that the ENTIRE area of the base is on (to) the table - you have simply made that up. Your (the area includes the whole base) is simply making up rules that dont exist.
But carry on, you are convinced youre right, everyone else who can actually READ the rules and avoid adding words is actually correct. You're wrong, and I think you even realise it, but seem to thinkl you will "save face" by continuing to argue an untenable position.
Please look up what area of the base means and you will see that i am correct.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
DeathReaper wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still adding "fully" onto in order to justify your stance
As you have been told 100 times now, you cant do this.
Nothing requires that the ENTIRE area of the base is on (to) the table - you have simply made that up. Your (the area includes the whole base) is simply making up rules that dont exist.
But carry on, you are convinced youre right, everyone else who can actually READ the rules and avoid adding words is actually correct. You're wrong, and I think you even realise it, but seem to thinkl you will "save face" by continuing to argue an untenable position.
Please look up what area of the base means and you will see that i am correct.
Except you are not... Nor have you answered my question... Please answer it otherwise I will be forced to disregard your posts in this argument.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DR - nope, you really are not, in any way shape or form "correct"
So, is the ruler on the table or off the table? One word answer please.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Gwar! wrote:otherwise I will be forced to disregard your posts in this argument.
Really? Just now?!
|
|
