This is a poll in reference to the following thread: Difficult terrain....Destroys Vehicle?. I feel that this thread has been argued Ad Nauseam, and I would just like to get the actual opinions of the dakka crowd.

Please do not debate in this thread, only share your opinion. To join the 600+ post debate, go to the linked thread above.

Question: When a vehicle can not move fully onto the table from reserves, what happens?

Here is some prerequisite knowledge needed to answer the question:
Baneblades and Monoliths are measurably more than 6" long.
Baneblades and Monoliths can only move up to 6".
Monoliths can deepstrike, but Baneblades are not able to.

Option A:
The vehicle is destroyed.

You agree with all of the following: baneblades are never allowed to enter from reserve, monoliths must deepstrike, and a failed difficult terrain test will destroy your vehicle if it stops partially off of the board.

Option B:
The vehicle remains where it is, possibly using wobbly model syndrome to mark it's actual location if it is in danger of falling. It functions just like a normal vehicle, and, as long as it's not immobilized, it can keep moving onto the board in the next movement phase.

You agree with all of the following: baneblades are allowed to enter from reserves, monoliths are also allowed to enter from reserves (not just by deepstrike), and a failed difficult terrain test will leave your vehicle immobilized while being partially off of the board edge.

Option C:
The vehicle is moved fully onto the table, even if it exceeds the vehicle's movement speed.

You agree with all of the following: baneblades and monoliths are moved more than 6" when entering from reserves; the minimum required distance to get them on the board edge.

You agree with one of the following:
Difficult terrain is ignored when moving onto the board.
-or-
If immobilized by difficult terrain, you still place the vehicle at the minimum distance to be fully on the board.

Something Else:
Please explain what you think would or should happen. Let us know what you agree with, and what you disagree with.

(Edited for clarity)

I'll take "D";

Vehicles not deployed fully counts as "Destroyed". Monoliths and Baneblades are given special permission to move fully onto the board because GW cannot write good, clear rules if their lives depended on it.

...does this really need a second thread?

SaintHazard wrote:...does this really need a second thread?

No, it doesn't.

That being said, I'll follow the rules. Option B.

Same.

Following the rules has the benefit of consistency and doesnt favour any one side.

I'll follow the rules and say "C".

You ignore rules that may prevent a unit from moving onto the board when entering from reserves.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I'll follow the rules and say "C".

You ignore rules that may prevent a unit from moving onto the board when entering from reserves.

So you really mean "B," right?

What you're saying here is that it's NOT destroyed.

What you're NOT saying (i.e. missing) is that once it's .0000000000000000001mm on the board, it's on the board.

No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

So in the instances where you can't move fully onto the board, even without a Dangerous Terrain test, such as a Necron Monolith or a Baneblade, you break the rules and allow them more than their maximum 6" movement?

I thought you said you were following the rules?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

Incorrect. You only ignore a special rule of that unit. Dangerous Terrain tests are a very very, very general rule. They dont even qualify as a universal Special Rule, they are just a general one. SO you dont ignore it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

Incorrect. You only ignore a special rule of that unit. Dangerous Terrain tests are a very very, very general rule. They dont even qualify as a universal Special Rule, they are just a general one. SO you dont ignore it.

Exactly right. Only the unit's own special rules that would prevent it from moving on are ignored.

But I have to vote D because I don't think it's answered in the rules. While there is nothing preventing a model from hanging off the edge of the table, there is also nothing ALLOWING it. And dn't we generally say that if you want to do something, you have to prove you can. So show me a line that specifically states that t amodel can be half off the table. Can't, it doesn't exist.

So, to me, there is no answer to this question. D.

Hooray for rules!

Voted B.

Don - the same as there arent specific rules allowing you to deploy into woods. You can do it because you are given general permission to deploy anywhere in your zone that isnt impassable (etc)

Same here: you are given permission to move onto, and "onto" has not been restricted. Thus, using the power of maths, logic and the English language, and possibly a nija attack panda or 2, being partially or fully on both satisfy the requirement.

So B is following the rules. People may not like it, but...well that really isnt a rules argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just want to know who voted for "destroyed", given that this never appears in the rules apart from when you move off the table due to falling back, and 1/3rd of mishap results....

Yes nos, and half off the table is not in my zone nor is is ON the table. It's just as much off as it is on, so it's neither. There is no specific or general or any statement whatsoever saying that a model may be partially off the table. Period. Nothing. Yes, on the table is not defined. I agree. But if a model is wholly on the table, then there's no argument. If if partially on the table, there is an argument. Just as you can say it's on the table, I can say it's off the table if even a millimeter is hangng off the edge. And we all know that models off table are generally unable to affect the game.

So no, IMO, B does not follow the rules. IMO, there is no answer per the rules.

But the rules dont care about half off, they only care about you bringing it on. So you have a rule stating you must bring it on, partially ON is still ON (ref: that damn ruler) because English tells you this, and so you have satisfied the only rule that matters.

In addition partially off /= off. The language doesnt work that way. IF you are partially supported (definition of on) you cannot be unsupported (definition of off)

The question was...
"When a vehicle can not move fully onto the table from reserves, what happens?"

don_mondo wrote:half off the table is not in my zone

Is irrelevant, deploying your forces in your deployment zone is different from moving onto the table from reserves

don_mondo wrote:half off the table is not ... ON the table.

Well it is...
If your half off you are also half on, if your half on you are still on. Albeit not fully, but being fully on is not what the rules say. The rules say move on, partially on is still on.

Alright, guys/gals, everyone makes a few good points in their favor. I don't really want the argument spilling into this thread.

What I really want is to see how most people play/interpret this rule. I do believe this thread can be a useful observational tool separate from the rules debate.

Then you shouldn't have asked for people who voted other to expalin why..................... But I'll shut up now.

Oh look, option B is winning by a landslide.
























Can we go home now?

don_mondo wrote:Then you shouldn't have asked for people who voted other to expalin why..................... But I'll shut up now.

Ha-ha, I know. I felt that I should let people explain their own version of how they think it works, but I don't want people arguing with them and telling them they are wrong. That is what the other thread is for. This thread is just to see how people play (or think they should play) the game.

SaintHazard wrote:Oh look, option B is winning by a landslide. Can we go home now?

~35 votes and only 2 (~5%) unexplained votes for the "I can take your vehicle away despite the rule saying nothing of the sort just because I think so. Also monoliths and baneblades are automatically destroyed for trying to use a valid deployment method" camp.
I wonder who they're from?

I voted B, because it's the RAW and both entirely playable and fair. No house rules required, though C looks reasonable and I'd agree to it if asked.

C is the easiest way to play it, and it's what my gaming group does.

B makes sense, but adding more Wobbly Model annoyance is the last thing I'm looking for.

don_mondo wrote:Then you shouldn't have asked for people who voted other to expalin why..................... But I'll shut up now.

Why? Vote, give your reason, and let other people give their reason.

How is that a difficult concept?

People, please don't spam the thread.

Thank you.

I take option B, because that's less of a hassle.

I said other, so here's my explanation:

Use Option B. House rule that the vehicle MUST move fully onto the table at its next opportunity, if able. Also, the model must move as far on to the table as possible (for vehicles moving into clear terrain that are simply longer than their maximum move, e.g Baneblade).

I only say this because I personally feel that having a model sit only like 2" on the table is a bit against the spirit of the game, if the model could finish moving fully on. (e.g. sticking your baneblade 1mm on the table to prevent it from getting assaulted).

Xca|iber wrote:I said other, so here's my explanation:

Use Option B. House rule that the vehicle MUST move fully onto the table at its next opportunity, if able. Also, the model must move as far on to the table as possible (for vehicles moving into clear terrain that are simply longer than their maximum move, e.g Baneblade).

I only say this because I personally feel that having a model sit only like 2" on the table is a bit against the spirit of the game, if the model could finish moving fully on. (e.g. sticking your baneblade 1mm on the table to prevent it from getting assaulted).

That doesn't prevent it being assaulted at all...

Chose B.

I haven't read the other thread or even thought there were other ways of going about it. B follows the rules, without house rules, and is simple.

Gwar! wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:I said other, so here's my explanation:

Use Option B. House rule that the vehicle MUST move fully onto the table at its next opportunity, if able. Also, the model must move as far on to the table as possible (for vehicles moving into clear terrain that are simply longer than their maximum move, e.g Baneblade).

I only say this because I personally feel that having a model sit only like 2" on the table is a bit against the spirit of the game, if the model could finish moving fully on. (e.g. sticking your baneblade 1mm on the table to prevent it from getting assaulted).

That doesn't prevent it being assaulted at all...

I meant to keep it out of assault range for an extra turn (or more). If it's fully on the board, attackers need to travel at least 6" less distance to assault, as the vehicle would be >6" further forward than it otherwise would be.

Xca|iber wrote:I meant to keep it out of assault range for an extra turn (or more). If it's fully on the board, attackers need to travel at least 6" less distance to assault, as the vehicle would be >6" further forward than it otherwise would be.

It's no different to putting a vehicle right up to your back edge or sideways along the back edge.

This is what I meant. Obviously, the difference isn't that huge for something smaller, but for a baneblade this (imho) makes a difference:

i put something else as i think your options are badly worded

things that are longer/wider then 6"(because if something was 7"long but only 5" wide i'd bring it on sideways) then they would move on as much as was possible

but if something was immobilised by difficult terrain that was FLUSH with the board edge then i believe it would be immobilised outside of the field of play and not enter at all

move the baneblade 6 inch and at the end of its move you can still turn it sideways?

doesnt work for the mono thou...

I say since you can't target something OFF the board if I am not ON the board more than 50% I get a Cover save!!

General_Chaos wrote:I say since you can't target something OFF the board if I am not ON the board more than 50% I get a Cover save!!

This is not the thread to argue the rules in, it's merely seeing how people play.

'B'

Title is a bit funny - having one 'sides' position stated as fact but, eh.

Rephistorch wrote:This is not the thread to argue the rules in, it's merely seeing how people play.

Oh it's not... just watch

I'd like it to be C, but B is the fairest/most RAW interpretation and the one we'd play it by in an average encounter.

All models are partially-on-the-table at some point during their move from reserves onto the board. They don't teleport 6" forwards when they run on, they move through adjacent spaces.

There's no text to support Rule A, but of course people can house rule anything that feels good to their group.

I pick 'A'. Kill it. If you don't like it, don't keep your gigantic tank in reserves. No other unit is allowed to be half-off of a table edge. Just because a baneblade is expensive doesn't make it any more exempt from that rule. If a unit is passed the table edge it is removed from play.

With the sole exception of people voting "Other", is there any reason whatsoever for anyone voting A/B/C to post their justification for their vote, in addition to simply voting? I'd think that after 22 pages any argument that could have been made would be made.

Ouze wrote:With the sole exception of people voting "Other", is there any reason whatsoever for anyone voting A/B/C to post their justification for their vote, in addition to simply voting? I'd think that after 22 pages any argument that could have been made would be made.

Well, I hadn't heard this one before:

Guitardian wrote:
I pick 'A'. Kill it. If you don't like it, don't keep your gigantic tank in reserves. No other unit is allowed to be half-off of a table edge. Just because a baneblade is expensive doesn't make it any more exempt from that rule. If a unit is passed the table edge it is removed from play.

Considering some instances where it's required to move models in from the board edge, this seems unreasonable to me. But, hey, I'm sure allowances can be made... or not.

That's different and you know it. They come onto the table measuring from the table edge, they don't come in from half-way across their base.

NO, they come on measuring from the front of their base at the edge of the board. At some point they ARE part on the board.
Its just a good job that the rules dont actually support your position Guitardian.

Additionally: Baneblades (and other superheavies) can be used in Speahead, but suffer a hit if deployed. Your interpretation would be that you either have it destroyed or suffer a hit. Hardly fair now is it?
You also didnt address that the Monolith suffers the same problems.

B.

I'm given permission (actually, obligation) to put my model down on the table after I finish the movement when I arrive from reserves. I'm NOT given permission to take it out of play, return it to reserves, treat it as casualty, or anything like it. Because I'm not given permission to do that, I may not do that.

As for shooting on it, use true line of sight and normal shooting rules. I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict (unless you try to charge it, in which case you can't wrap around the tank very much).

Mahtamori wrote:I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict (unless you try to charge it, in which case you can't wrap around the tank very much).

Well, this sounds like a refreshing new way to play! I look forward to, in my next game, having a whirlwind battery off the board in reserve shooting onto the board. After all, there is nothing on page 94 (reserves) which says I can't do that. Of course, I have to be careful, because he can also destroy my units in reserve! As a matter of fact, if he put them close enough to my side, my opponent's units in reserve (off the board) will assault my off-board reserve units! And if he does that, I can't stop him, because nothing in the rulebook says he can't do that.

In the first paragraph, you presume a restrictive ruleset - unless it specifically says you can, you can't. In the second paragraph, you presume a permissive ruleset - you can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the rules. Which is it?

You are intentionally misinterpreting what I write. Just because the rules do not provide a penalty for if a model is off the table, they also do not provide a means to get there outside of the vehicle failing to move on to the table when arriving from reserves - it's not a matter of choice.

You're apparently seriously arguing that you're allowed to target things that are not on the board. Yes, I'm intentionally misrepresenting what you wrote, because what you theorize - that unless the rules expressly forbid it, you can do it - completely breaks the game.

Ouze wrote:You're apparently seriously arguing that you're allowed to target things that are not on the board. Yes, I'm intentionally misrepresenting what you wrote, because what you theorize - that unless the rules expressly forbid it, you can do it - completely breaks the game.

There's a major difference between "It doesn't say I can't so I can" and "I can and it doesn't say I can't".

This ain't Air Bud.

If it doesn't say you may, you may not.

Lol, poll is horribly skewed. Learn to write a non bias poll.

People don't event think about the complications. Oh look, my tank is .01" on the board. It is now immune to blast weapons.

There would also be no way to setup an outflank defense. There will always be that tiny space for you to come on and go straight to assault.

I especially like it when the original poster came in and declared that he was right and the controversy was over because a majority out of like 90 people agreed with him...

Great statistical proof there.


Anyways, I am pretty sure the rule says to move the model onto the table. NOT move part of the model onto the table.

Therefore I went with what the rules say and voted A.

CptZach wrote:Lol, poll is horribly skewed. Learn to write a non bias poll.

I especially like it when the original poster came in and declared that he was right and the controversy was over because a majority out of like 90 people agreed with him...

Great statistical proof there.

He did?
...where?

I went with what the rules say and voted A.

The rules say that the vehicle "is destroyed"? ...where?

Some of these posts honestly just seem... nonsensical.

I like how in CptZach's version of the rules, you can add qualifiers where none previously existed.

Tell you what, from now on, when YOU'RE shooting, you need to be able to draw LOS and range on my ENTIRE unit of infantry, because I felt like adding a qualifier there. And from now on, your templates and blast markers have to ENTIRELY cover the base of an infantry model for it to count as a hit. And while we're at it, you can't assault unless your base is ENTIRELY in contact with my base - so basically, if you can't stack your bases on top of mine, you can't assault me, ever. And your 24" range on your storm bolter needs to ENTIRELY cover whatever you're shooting at, so if the model you're shooting at isn't 24" long and right up against your base, you can't shoot them.

...wanna stop adding arbitrary qualifiers now? 'Cause I can sit here and do this all day.

Gorkamorka wrote:There's a major difference between "It doesn't say I can't so I can" and "I can and it doesn't say I can't".

Yes, that is what I am trying to point out, with Mahtamori's post 3 or 4 back (so not sure why you're quoting me). He states that the vehicle cannot be destroyed because no rule dictates that he must. No rule = not allowed. He then immediately says that he can't find any rules saying he's not allowed to target anything off the board. No rule forbidding = allowed.

If we decide to go with the latter rule, then the game quickly becomes unplayable. Specifically, if as Mahtamori says, "I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict that rather clearly means that if you can shoot things of the board, conversely, you can shoot stuff that's in reserve - right? I read page 94, twice - nothing says things in reserve cannot fire. So, if I have something long range in reserve, like whatever that ridiculous IG death missile is - no reason I can't fire it while it's still in reserve on the first turn, right? See how ludicrous this interpretation immediately becomes?

Gorkamorka wrote:

CptZach wrote:Lol, poll is horribly skewed. Learn to write a non bias poll.

I especially like it when the original poster came in and declared that he was right and the controversy was over because a majority out of like 90 people agreed with him...

Great statistical proof there.

He did?
...where?

Thanks, I was pretty sure I didn't come out and say that I was right in this thread. While I'm sure what I believe can be inferred by some of my posts I haven't actually said which option I have selected, and I haven't bragged that what I think may or may not be "in the lead".

I say B. You can even justify it. The vehicle hasn't literally moved on, it has been dropped, teleported, magically appeared out of thin air . . . whatever. And because it is so close to the base of operations it doesn't scatter =D

Done, done, and done . . .

Oshova

Ouze wrote:
Yes, that is what I am trying to point out, with Mahtamori's post 3 or 4 back (so not sure why you're quoting me). He states that the vehicle cannot be destroyed because no rule dictates that he must. No rule = not allowed. He then immediately says that he can't find any rules saying he's not allowed to target anything off the board. No rule forbidding = allowed.

If we decide to go with the latter rule, then the game quickly becomes unplayable. Specifically, if as Mahtamori says, "I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict that rather clearly means that if you can shoot things of the board, conversely, you can shoot stuff that's in reserve - right? I read page 94, twice - nothing says things in reserve cannot fire. So, if I have something long range in reserve, like whatever that ridiculous IG death missile is - no reason I can't fire it while it's still in reserve on the first turn, right? See how ludicrous this interpretation immediately becomes?

I really don't want to start the argument up in this thread again... suffice it to say that he's right (if a bit unspecific) and there's nothing preventing you from measuring to his partially on the board tank that is perfectly in play after arriving from reserves.
There's plenty preventing you from measuring from your units that have not been deployed, are still in reserves, have no defined off-board position, and have not "become available" via arriving.

If you don't want to restart the argument, then what is the point of your post?

Off-topic, I'm having some serious issues not imagining The Janitor writing all of Gorkamorka's posts.

Or, frankly, any comments in this thread at all other then "other" as proscribed by the poll. Not that I'm hellbent on preventing anyone from expressing themselves, which is kind of the whole point of Dakka - but I don't see how this could possibly end any differently then the last one did - as a slow moving trainwreck.

But Ouze . . . slow moving trainwrecks are fun =D

But I understand your point, that any interpretaion in the first 3 could be correct . . . but really B is the most true ruleswise.

Oshova

B for all the reasons everyone posted about choosing A, C, and most of the posts regarding Other.

The only rules that destroy an entire unit outright are generally due to the opponent's activity:
Sweeping Advance (you have been beaten in assault and lost the initiative roll-off)
Trapped! (you have been beaten in assault and the opponent blocks your retreat)
Assaults While Falling Back (You have been beaten in assault and fail to regroup when assaulted by an enemy unit)
Transport Vehicles: Destroyed – wrecked (the enemy has surrounded and wrecked your transport)

Deep Strike mishaps only offer a 1 in 3 chance to destroy a unit and may indeed be due to the strategic position of your enemy blocking your entry.

RAI: unless the enemy is entirely blocking your entry from reserves, you may move the model on ignoring difficult terrain, rage, crazed!, Glory Hogs, etc.

utan wrote:ignoring difficult terrain

The rules still do not support this approach. You may ignore special rules that may proclude the vehicle from moving onto the board, but difficult terrain is not a special rule.

And the fact that most actions that destroy your units are a product of your opponent's actions really has no bearing on the situation.

SaintHazard wrote:

utan wrote:ignoring difficult terrain

The rules still do not support this approach. You may ignore special rules that may proclude the vehicle from moving onto the board, but difficult terrain is not a special rule.

And the fact that most actions that destroy your units are a product of your opponent's actions really has no bearing on the situation.

I am discussing from the RAI side as I indicated, so the rules precedents to apply.

The RAW is unclear as we see from the partially/fully/on/off thread...

To be a bit more precise, you can only ignore the UNIT's special rules. Taking a difficult terrain test is NOT a unit's special rule.

SaintHazard wrote:I like how in CptZach's version of the rules, you can add qualifiers where none previously existed.

Tell you what, from now on, when YOU'RE shooting, you need to be able to draw LOS and range on my ENTIRE unit of infantry, because I felt like adding a qualifier there. And from now on, your templates and blast markers have to ENTIRELY cover the base of an infantry model for it to count as a hit. And while we're at it, you can't assault unless your base is ENTIRELY in contact with my base - so basically, if you can't stack your bases on top of mine, you can't assault me, ever. And your 24" range on your storm bolter needs to ENTIRELY cover whatever you're shooting at, so if the model you're shooting at isn't 24" long and right up against your base, you can't shoot them.

...wanna stop adding arbitrary qualifiers now? 'Cause I can sit here and do this all day.

Except you're adding a qualifier that isn't there. All of those things are already refuted by the rules. A template just has to touch a model, you only need LOS to 1 model in a unit to shoot at it ect.

The word I added didn't change the meaning at all.

Move the model onto the table and move the entire model onto the table. Both are exactly the same. There is no difference from the model and the entire model.

Versus you who are changing it and saying move PART of the model onto the table.

CptZach wrote:Except you're adding a qualifier that isn't there. All of those things are already refuted by the rules. A template just has to touch a model, you only need LOS to 1 model in a unit to shoot at it ect.

The word I added didn't change the meaning at all.

Move the model onto the table and move the entire model onto the table. Both are exactly the same. There is no difference from the model and the entire model.

Versus you who are changing it and saying move PART of the model onto the table.

Wanna go ahead and quote me the rule that says the ENTIRE model has to be on the table?

I'll give you a hint: it doesn't exist.

You're adding the "entire" qualifier. The model must be on the table. End of. If .0000000000001% of the model is on the table, the model is on the table. "Part of the model" is adding a qualifier just as much as "the whole model." The fact is, both satisfy the unqualified requirement of "on the table."

CptZach wrote:Move the model onto the table and move the entire model onto the table. Both are exactly the same. There is no difference from the model and the entire model..

Errm... Yes, there is?

As we had to do in the other thread, please answer the following question with ONE SINGLE WORD: Yes OR No.

One Word. Not hard right?

Is the ruler on the Table? Yes, or No. Please, once again (since this part is hard for people apparently), ONE WORD ANSWER, Yes, or No.

It's like disembarking from a transport. You only need a smidgen (yes that's a technical term) of the base withing 2" of the door (or whatever) as it says within. Not ENTIRELY within.

Oshova

Oshova wrote:It's like disembarking from a transport. You only need a smidgen (yes that's a technical term) of the base withing 2" of the door (or whatever) as it says within. Not ENTIRELY within.

Oshova

You're on fire today, dude.

Hang out here more often.

It won't last I'm sure. Just having a good half hour or so =p

Ouze wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict (unless you try to charge it, in which case you can't wrap around the tank very much).

Well, this sounds like a refreshing new way to play! I look forward to, in my next game, having a whirlwind battery off the board in reserve shooting onto the board. After all, there is nothing on page 94 (reserves) which says I can't do that. Of course, I have to be careful, because he can also destroy my units in reserve! As a matter of fact, if he put them close enough to my side, my opponent's units in reserve (off the board) will assault my off-board reserve units! And if he does that, I can't stop him, because nothing in the rulebook says he can't do that.

In the first paragraph, you presume a restrictive ruleset - unless it specifically says you can, you can't. In the second paragraph, you presume a permissive ruleset - you can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the rules. Which is it?

Man I remember doing that in 2nd Ed with my Lemans. It was so awesome. "INCOMING!"

I think I might have to start IG and go out and buy 9 Basilisk models . . . =D

Oshova

... You cannot shoot from or at models in reserve or assault them. This is because they have not been placed so they effectively exist nowhere. When a model is stranded off the board that is different as it has been place at a fixed location.

@Gwar
No


Oh and I know everyone likes to quote the permissive ruleset.
So please show me the rule that allows a model to be halfway off the board.

CptZach wrote:@Gwar
No

So why isn't it on the floor?

If it was not on the table, it would fall onto the floor, right?

Gwar! wrote:

CptZach wrote:@Gwar
No

So why isn't it on the floor?

If it was not on the table, it would fall onto the floor, right?

So wait, you ask me to give a 1 word answer and then you make fun of me when I do?

Wow dude.

CptZach wrote:
So wait, you ask me to give a 1 word answer and then you make fun of me when I do?

When it is blatantly wrong, and apparently deliberately so, it is not so strange, really.

The ruler is on the table by any definition you care to look up.
It is not entirely on the table, but no one asked if it was, and no rule states it has to be.

The ruler (per correct english) refers to the entire ruler.
In order to talk about part of the ruler you would need to add a qualifier.

The (entire) ruler is not on the table. So the answer is no.

CptZach wrote:The ruler (per incorrect english) refers to the entire ruler.

You have not looked it up, have you?

If you have, then my assumption that you are being deliberately wrong is well founded.

English actually would require the word you are adding to be added for the statement you are making up to be true.

Really.

Editing to save people the. . .effort:
Here is what on means in English.

No, not really.

Alright, this is getting off topic. Please refrain from arguing semantics in this thread.

Seriously? I mean, you're actually going to try to tell us that the phrase "partially on" does not have the word "on" in it?

Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

The ruler is fully on the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

Is the ruler on the desk? No? The ruler is on the floor. If the ruler is not on the floor, or magically suspended mid-air, it cannot be anywhere but on the desk.

The ruler cannot be off the desk and on the desk at the same time. If it is partially on the desk, it is not off the desk. It is on the desk.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

SaintHazard wrote:... snip ...

I understand your frustration, but I repeat, this is not the thread for argument, only for data collection.

Thank you.

-Points to Flag-

-Points to country where Book was written-

In ENGLISH, that ruler is on the table.

We invented the damn thing, you listen to us! </joke>

Hey, we have the Englishes too!

In Americas we talk plenty good today.

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

Lol so many things wrong with this. You added a qualifier. Partially on and On are not the same thing.

I am glad you need to revert to personal attacks to try and prove yourself correct.

CptZach wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

Lol so many things wrong with this. You added a qualifier. Partially on and On are not the same thing.

I am glad you need to revert to personal attacks to try and prove yourself correct.

Never did I say they were the same thing. Don't quote me out of context and put words in my mouth.

Partially on is not the same thing as on, because "partially on" has nine more letters and a qualifier.

But is "partially on" "on"? Yes. "Partially on" includes "on." If it's partially on, it qualifies for the unqualified requirement of "on."

And this really is the kind of gak they teach you in first grade. It's absolutely staggering that there are people who don't realize this.

SaintHazard wrote:

CptZach wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

Lol so many things wrong with this. You added a qualifier. Partially on and On are not the same thing.

I am glad you need to revert to personal attacks to try and prove yourself correct.

Never did I say they were the same thing. Don't quote me out of context and put words in my mouth.

Partially on is not the same thing as on, because "partially on" has nine more letters and a qualifier.

But is "partially on" "on"? Yes. "Partially on" includes "on." If it's partially on, it qualifies for the unqualified requirement of "on."

And this really is the kind of gak they teach you in first grade. It's absolutely staggering that there are people who don't realize this.

Cut it out (edit: both of you!). Do you even bother reading the original posts, or my numerous posts telling you to leave the argument alone?

You both think you're correct. That's fine, but keep it to yourselves. Send each other a PM if you want to argue, or start your own thread.

Modquisition on.

Multiple warnings have been given. Further posts after this public warning that violate Rule #1 will now draw suspensions automatically with no further warnings. Weiners are now watching. Be afraid.

Guys, guys, I think I got it. Lets try this: So, Zach. What you're saying is that in order for a model to be on the table, it's footprint must be entirely on the table. I understand what you're saying, though I don't agree with it. But what about the table itself? I don't play on the floor, and I don't play on a column. My table is on legs though, because it would be any of those things otherwise, and therefore, make for a pretty terrible table. Right? _ON_ legs. The footprint of the table is not containable within the space on top of the legs, but it is still said to be ON. Now, since GW didn't (and with good reason) include any explanation of what it means to be "on", we must fall back to the English definition. Therefore, I call Merriam-Webster to the stand:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on?show=0&t=1285261701

1a —used as a function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top surface of <the book is lying on the table>

Except we can actually reduce that one step further, by the magic of Wobbly Model Syndrome, because that gives us a tool for things that will not stand on the table, i.e. Baneblade immobilized 1" into its movement, so then English (per the language) appears to argue in favor of option B.

A good proof of concept of this is here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/table

3a: a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs

don_mondo wrote:Yes nos, and half off the table is not in my zone nor is is ON the table. It's just as much off as it is on, so it's neither. There is no specific or general or any statement whatsoever saying that a model may be partially off the table. Period. Nothing. Yes, on the table is not defined. I agree. But if a model is wholly on the table, then there's no argument. If if partially on the table, there is an argument. Just as you can say it's on the table, I can say it's off the table if even a millimeter is hangng off the edge. And we all know that models off table are generally unable to affect the game.

So no, IMO, B does not follow the rules. IMO, there is no answer per the rules.

the rules don't define what "On the Table" means.


Therefor i could have my baneblade .00001" on the table and it would be "On the table"

So, there's been a reasonable cross section of votes, and people appear to have decided to ignore what the thread was for in favour of just rehashing the same rules debate carried on in the previous thread... so I think it's time to give this one a rest.