So, a friend and I are having a conversation about models being on the table or off. I don't have access to any of my rulebooks at the moment (because I'm at work and should be working rather than discussing 40K), so, I come here to folks that have access to the rules or have photographic memories.

What tells you that your models must be completely on the board, or off the board? My friend is suggesting that there is no rule that states you must place your model completely on or completely off - that it is somehow legal to have a model "partially" on the table and still be considered "on the table". While I vehemently disagree, as I said, I don't have any rules to back me up. Can anyone give me a hand with this with some relevant rules references?

Any models that can't come entirely on the board count as destroyed and are removed from play.

It's in the FAQ cut and dry.

daedalus wrote:Any models that can't come entirely on the board count as destroyed and are removed from play.

It's in the FAQ cut and dry.

Right. I think this issue is more about deployment. What tells you that you must be deployed 100% on the table and not just 95%?

I think he's suggesting that partial deployment is legal, while I am not. We have discussed the fact that it is a permissive ruleset and you must be allowed to do something, and he asks then, what gives you permission to measure to the table edge at deployment? What tells you that you are not "on the table", when you are 50% or more on the table?

deployment is movement on the board.

the faq states that during deployment any models that are not on the table 100% are destroyed.

doesnt matter if they deepstrike on, move on, or start that way at the beginning of the game. = 100% destroyed.

yea thats pretty much it. your friend is wrong.

its even in the RAW.

if a unit is deep striking, they are "off" the table in reserve. (although if you have them shoved on a corner and marked as DS then they can be physically on the table)

All these things are great, but they're all inferences. What tells you specifically that I cannot take a Land Raider and deploy it with its back end sitting over the board edge?

<- The guilty friend.

The discussion began with 'large oval base' Skimmers and whether the base is the only thing that determines whether it is 'completely' on the board.

I'll ask you guys to specifically reference the FAQ as some of you are adding what you read, not what is actually written.

JBW wrote:<- The guilty friend.

The discussion began with 'large oval base' Skimmers and whether the base is the only thing that determines whether it is 'completely' on the board.

I'll ask you guys to specifically reference the FAQ as some of you are adding what you read, not what is actually written.

greetings!

well, I would have to say on the topic of skimmers, its the base. if the base is on, its on.

the RAW only ever reference the base or hull of the model.

in the instance of a land raider, if the hull cannot be on the tabletop, you just lost a land raider.

I will reference the pages of the RAW when I get home and can grab them.

Rimmy wrote:

JBW wrote:<- The guilty friend.

The discussion began with 'large oval base' Skimmers and whether the base is the only thing that determines whether it is 'completely' on the board.

I'll ask you guys to specifically reference the FAQ as some of you are adding what you read, not what is actually written.

greetings!

well, I would have to say on the topic of skimmers, its the base. if the base is on, its on.

This is why I didn't want to bring up the actual conversation, because the thread would get off on a skimmer versus vehicle tangent. I just wanted to discuss the board edge bit.

puma713 wrote:

Rimmy wrote:

JBW wrote:<- The guilty friend.

The discussion began with 'large oval base' Skimmers and whether the base is the only thing that determines whether it is 'completely' on the board.

I'll ask you guys to specifically reference the FAQ as some of you are adding what you read, not what is actually written.

greetings!

well, I would have to say on the topic of skimmers, its the base. if the base is on, its on.

This is why I didn't want to bring up the actual conversation, because the thread would get off on a skimmer versus vehicle tangent. I just wanted to discuss the board edge bit.

well there is a difference though.

the board edge rule applies to the base of the model. in the instance of vehicles where there is no base, rather the hull of the model, thats where the distinction lies.

when you measure for LOS or for firing purposes you use the base on a skimmer, so the deployment would use the base as well.

its still pretty cut and dry.

That's fine with me. Because they are not privy to the previous discussions we had about this topic. Let us discuss the % of model that is required to be 'completely' on the table. My view point, if I can state it accurately, is that semantically and specifically the MRB or FAQs do not address what is defined as a complete model in regards to whether it is deployed 'completely'. I know this sounds silly at first, but engage this and actually try to find it. All references to a hull or base that you are given grant permission to measure the distance moved or the distance from another model. Let's take out shooting as it's not really part of the discussion.

sorry, an add, the movement phase also uses the base of the skimmer. and as mentioned above, deployment is still movement for the intent of setting up the game.

again folks, post specific MRB quotes, as you are still referencing the what you read, not what is written.

the RAW state that the entire hull or base of a bodel (which covers everything) must be completely on the table at the time of deployment or movement. any part of the model moved, deployed or otherwise, that is off the board, is considered out of the game as it has left the active battle.

its simple. the percentage is 100% on is on, anything LESS than 100%, is off the table and therefore removed from play.

because a slkimmer is a based model, its base must be fully on the board to be playable.

any vehicle (or otherwise) model that does not have a base (which includes the monolith) its hull must be on the table.

Rimmy wrote:sorry, an add, the movement phase also uses the base of the skimmer. and as mentioned above, deployment is still movement for the intent of setting up the game.

Alright, to nip this in the bud and get on with the actual thread, all measurements for a skimmer are done to the hull. You ignore the base of skimmers for all purposes except for assault. Valkyries/Vendettas and Stormravens have caveats in their relevent FAQs, but the BGB is explicit:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:
Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both.

This was supplied by our conversation; I don't have my rulebook on me, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

The topic it hand is: Where does it say that you must be 100% on the table to be considered "on the table". Not movement, not coming in from reserves, not deep-striking. Just simply placed on the edge of the table with the rear hanging off. Why does this work/not work?

JBW wrote:That's fine with me. Because they are not privy to the previous discussions we had about this topic. Let us discuss the % of model that is required to be 'completely' on the table. My view point, if I can state it accurately, is that semantically and specifically the MRB or FAQs do not address what is defined as a complete model in regards to whether it is deployed 'completely'. I know this sounds silly at first, but engage this and actually try to find it. All references to a hull or base that you are given grant permission to measure the distance moved or the distance from another model. Let's take out shooting as it's not really part of the discussion.

I see what you're trying to do here, but the pitfall with this is that it's a permissive system. "Because it says I can't" isn't a valid option, otherwise one could make such statements as "of course I can cover any of your models I kill with whipped cream and eat them. Show me where it says otherwise." As delicious as that would be, it doesn't work.

So I can't give you a page number where it says "Don't deploy stuff halfway on." I can give you this from http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830600a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_4.pdf however:

The Movement Phase
Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
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!

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

Q: Can a vehicle that is moving on from reserves
perform a tank shock? (p68)
A: Yes it can, declare the distance it is going to move
along with its direction and move the tank onto the
board that many inches, measuring from the board
edge as for a normal from reserve. The tank shock is
performed as usual. However, if the tank is forced to
stop for any reason before the entire vehicle is on the
board then the vehicle, and any embarked units, count
as destroyed and are removed from play.

So, in EVERY situation where they've ever referenced placing models and an edge of the table is involved, they've said it's 100% or 0%. If that's not sufficient proof to believe that they didn't somehow intend for you to be able to deploy halfway on the table despite how in every other situation they say it's not allowed, well, then I'm afraid I don't know what else to tell you.

Part of the problem is that it is intrinsically unfair to have part of a model hanging off of a table, because this effectively gives that model "cover" from blast weapons that scatter to the portion that is off the table, because the blast is then off the table. It also allows the model to lengthen ranges from weapons being shot at it, again, by having an inch or two of the model hanging off of the table, which otherwise would push them closer to the shooter.

The skimmer thing is a whole different can of worms. I play it has to be all on. I've seen other people who think otherwise. The problem then becomes what is the foot print of the model, for assaulting and measuring ranges to it?

Lets say I have a side shot at a vendetta that is part on and part off of the table, at a slight angle. Lets say I am in range to shoot at the side hull near the tail, but which is off the table, but I am barely out of range for the portion of the vehicle on the table. It would be very inequitable to say my shot fails because it goes off table, and yet the vehicle is not destroyed even though it is hanging partly off the table.

These types of issues are prevented simply by taking an all-on approach for models.

I mean, I don't like it. I don't think it makes sense. Makes bringing a Baneblade in from table edge in Dawn of War mighty tricky. It's DA ROOLZ though, and that's what we do here.

The Movement Phase
Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
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!

Not suggesting that the model is trying to move off the table. And deployment is not moving onto the table. In this case I'm moving onto the table.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

"completely" Means the hull, or base? I agree that it doesn't specify what completely means. So I mentioned my interpretation of 'completely' for Flyers (or Skimmers with large oval flying bases) to mean base.

Q: Can a vehicle that is moving on from reserves perform a tank shock? (p68)
A: Yes it can, declare the distance it is going to move along with its direction and move the tank onto the board that many inches, measuring from the board edge as for a normal from reserve. The tank shock is performed as usual. However, if the tank is forced to stop for any reason before the entire vehicle is on the board then the vehicle, and any embarked units, count as destroyed and are removed from play.

GW once again doesn't not specify what "the entire vehicle" is. If the vehicle's table top footprint is the base then that to me would mean a skimmer has met this requirement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is an excerpt of Puma and I discussing on a different forum....

Where does it mention in the MRB or anywhere about a hull hanging over the edge? The best anyone could really do is agree that it is not covered in the MRB. Then as you correctly mentioned, we go to the FAQs for clarification. I'll assume for now that you are getting the 'hull over the edge' from this:

Quote:
Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94) A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

There's nothing said about a hull. So once again the best we can do is discuss what is meant by 'completely'. Up until this point everyone could have left part of their model off the table. So long as it stayed on the table it technically was legal. Noone (that was a decent gamer) would try this but it was not clear.

JBW wrote:
Not suggesting that the model is trying to move off the table. And deployment is not moving onto the table. In this case I'm moving onto the table.

Sure.

"completely" Means the hull, or base? I agree that it doesn't specify what completely means. So I mentioned my interpretation of 'completely' for Flyers (or Skimmers with large oval flying bases) to mean base.

"Completely" doesn't have a game definition, so it is left to default to the English definition. In this case, "completely" would mean "the entirely of it", the "whole shebang" or perhaps "kit and caboodle", if you please.

GW once again doesn't not specify what "the entire vehicle" is. If the vehicle's table top footprint is the base then that to me would mean a skimmer has met this requirement.

And that's the beauty of it. If they don't specify what the entire vehicle is, then the entire vehicle is the entire vehicle, right? I mean, what else COULD it be.

Also, vehicle's tabletop footprint is the base for the purposes of assaults, contesting objectives, deploying, and determining whether or not you're over terrain features that might count as dangerous. It's not the footprint for other things, such as blast markers, templates, LoS, or shooting range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Where does it mention in the MRB or anywhere about a hull hanging over the edge? The best anyone could really do is agree that it is not covered in the MRB. Then as you correctly mentioned, we go to the FAQs for clarification. I'll assume for now that you are getting the 'hull over the edge' from this:

Quote:
Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94) A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

There's nothing said about a hull. So once again the best we can do is discuss what is meant by 'completely'. Up until this point everyone could have left part of their model off the table. So long as it stayed on the table it technically was legal. Noone (that was a decent gamer) would try this but it was not clear.

Doesn't need to be anything about a hull. You have a unit, which is made up of one or more models. If the model is infantry, then you are done. If the model is a vehicle, then it will have a hull, and certain decorative elements. The decorative elements are said specifically to not be a part of the hull.

daedalus wrote:
Also, vehicle's tabletop footprint is the base for the purposes of assaults, contesting objectives, deploying, and determining whether or not you're over terrain features that might count as dangerous.

Unless it is a skimmer. A skimmer has a specific ruling that you ignore the base for all purposes except assault. Certain "flyer" models have caveats in their FAQs, but, as a general rule, a skimmer ignores its base, meaning you measure all distances from the hull. I wouldn't be able to hang my Falcon model halfway over the deployment line because my base is so far back on the model, just like I can't hang a Land Raider over the table edge.

So, we've established that a model must be "completely" on the table. And that refers to a model in its entirety, because there is no allowance for anything but its entirety. Therefore, vehicles must be moved/deployed in their entirety on the table, else they are destroyed.

Edit: I'm not trying to bully my viewpoint in here, I'm just trying to find a common ground where JBW and I can resume our former conversation.

Eldanar wrote:Part of the problem is that it is intrinsically unfair to have part of a model hanging off of a table, because this effectively gives that model "cover" from blast weapons that scatter to the portion that is off the table, because the blast is then off the table. It also allows the model to lengthen ranges from weapons being shot at it, again, by having an inch or two of the model hanging off of the table, which otherwise would push them closer to the shooter.

The skimmer thing is a whole different can of worms. I play it has to be all on. I've seen other people who think otherwise. The problem then becomes what is the foot print of the model, for assaulting and measuring ranges to it?

Lets say I have a side shot at a vendetta that is part on and part off of the table, at a slight angle. Lets say I am in range to shoot at the side hull near the tail, but which is off the table, but I am barely out of range for the portion of the vehicle on the table. It would be very inequitable to say my shot fails because it goes off table, and yet the vehicle is not destroyed even though it is hanging partly off the table.

These types of issues are prevented simply by taking an all-on approach for models.

Eldanar, I see the concern, and please know that I'm not intentionally attempting to get a All benefits/No drawbacks debate going here, but I do offer this:
*Removed*

**Ok, so the MRB says the vehicle is hit and doesn't mention a table edge miss. Here's the reference

If a vehicle is even partially under a template weapon, it is hit on the Armour value the firer is facing.

When firing a blast weapon against a vehicle, place the marker with the hole over any part of the vehicle's hull and then roll for scatter as normal. In the case of multiple blasts, place the hole in the center of the first marker on the vehicle's hull. If the markers scatter so that they're not over the vehicle at all, then obviously the vehicle is not affected. If a marker ends over the vehicle, it makes a big difference if the hole in the center of the marker is over the vehicle or not:

• The center of the blast marker ends over the vehicle's hull. In this case the shell or missile has hit the vehicle and exploded on it. The armour penetration roll is resolved against the Armour value facing the firer, regardless of the position of the marker, using the full Strength of the weapon. Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armour).

• The center of the blast marker ends outside the vehicle, but part of the marker covers its hull. In this case the shell or missile has missed the vehicle, and only some shrapnel clanks against the vehicle's armour. The armour penetration roll is resolved against the Armour Value facing the center of the marker, regardless of the position of the firer, and the weapon 's Strength is halved (round down).

JBW wrote:
Yes, the shot would be a miss, but if you read the rest of the rules, you wouldn't have hit the vehicle anyways as only the base counts towards whether it is hit or not. The initial placement was where you wanted it to be and where it ends up is what determines is hit.

When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a vehicle.

?

daedalus, that's to target infantry, and it's not in the shooting a vehicle section. sorry. Poor reference on my part. I fixed it, see above.

JBW wrote:
**Ok, so the MRB says the vehicle is hit and doesn't mention a table edge miss. Here's the reference

If you have all your Orks on a sheet tray on the right side of the table, waiting to come onto the board, can I shoot at them with a blast weapon if they are in range? If not, why not? I'll save the rhetoric: Because they're off the table. Just as much as a vehicle's hull is "off the table" if it is partially on the table. That is what Eldanar is getting at.

The table edge is no-man's land. Shots miss if they go off of it, entire units are removed if one model touches it, if a model coming on from the side doesn't make it on, they are destroyed. It is not something that can be circumvented. This is a hard and fast rule of 40K and always has been, as far as I can remember.

This tells us that units in reserve have to be on the board completely. (I.E. it can not be off the board at all.)

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

As for deployment P.92 has the three deployment types.

All three state that you must deploy IN your half of the table (Or IN one of the table quarters).

So you can not deploy outside of our deployment zone, this includes hanging off the table edge.

Check out this thread (Before the FaQ came out) about the discussion between on and off the table, interesting read.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/315833.page

puma713 wrote:
Edit: I'm not trying to bully my viewpoint in here, I'm just trying to find a common ground where JBW and I can resume our former conversation.

I agree and understand. I just don't see where the FAQ defines that the entire Flyer type model as 'completely' and 'entire' when its base is 'completely' and 'entire'ly on the table.

DeathReaper wrote:
As for deployment P.92 has the three deployment types.

All three state that you must deploy IN your half of the table (Or IN one of the table quarters).

So you can not deploy outside of our deployment zone, this includes hanging off the table edge.

Thank you, DR. This is about as close as we've come to a definitive answer about deployment. If you're told to put something in a box, and it is hanging outside of the box, then you're not doing what you're told.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JBW wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Edit: I'm not trying to bully my viewpoint in here, I'm just trying to find a common ground where JBW and I can resume our former conversation.

I agree and understand. I just don't see where the FAQ defines that the entire Flyer type model as 'completely' and 'entire' when its base is 'completely' and 'entire'ly on the table.

Which is ignored for all purposes except for assault. And a few other things (disembarking, testing for terrain, etc.).

To put it simply-

1)If the entirety of the vehicle's hull is not inside the boundaries set by the table edge, the vehicle is not on the table and is destroyed.

2)If the base of any infantry model in a unit is not entirely on the board, the unit is destroyed.

3)If the base of a walker(sentinel/dreadnaught/killa kan) is not entirely on the table, the model is destroyed.

Take a ruler and run it along the playing edges in a vertical fashion. If it hits the base or hull of anything, that model is wrong.

-cgmckenzie

puma713 wrote:If you have all your Orks on a sheet tray on the right side of the table, waiting to come onto the board, can I shoot at them with a blast weapon if they are in range? If not, why not? I'll save the rhetoric: Because they're off the table. Just as much as a vehicle's hull is "off the table" if it is partially on the table. That is what Eldanar is getting at.

The table edge is no-man's land. Shots miss if they go off of it, entire units are removed if one model touches it, if a model coming on from the side doesn't make it on, they are destroyed. It is not something that can be circumvented. This is a hard and fast rule of 40K and always has been, as far as I can remember.

Ha! nicely done. But the rules actually are different for shooting at infantry than at vehicles, and the rules do not mention a missed shot as long as part of the blast marker is over the hull of the model.

DR's statement is backed up by the first sentence on page 88, "Standard missions are designed to be played on a 6'x4' gaming surface.."

This clearly defines what the area of the table is.

Then in the deployment section, you are instructed where "within" this gaming surface you are permitted to deploy your forces.

When you are told to deploy in your half of the table, your forces must be within this area. If not they are deployed illegally and need to be placed where it is legal to do so.

I'll look at it DR. Thanks for the reference. Be back in min or so.

Puma, everything is from the base, based on all the recent FAQ the base isn't ignored for anything except for shooting. Moving from base, Assaulting to the base or contacting the hull if you're tall enough, contesting objectives from the base, disembarking from the base.

Also the deployment zone is defined as how far away from the center (typically) you are required to be. Maybe I need to revisit what I'd do if I was to deploy the flyer at the closest point to the enemy.

This is covered by the INAT FAQ. If both you and your opponent agree to use the INAT FAQ rules (just like you implicitly agree to use the BRB ones) then many, many troubling rules questions are resolved. Print off a copy and keep it with your BRB. If your opponent doesn't agree to the INAT FAQ rules, look up his army list in the INAT FAQ anyway and use every loophole you can to demonstrate why you should use said FAQ in the future, or at least agree to your own set of stitching for the BRB/Codex loopholes. If your opponent wants an incomplete rules set, give it to him, because he obviously doesn't want you to have a complete one.

JBW wrote:
Puma, everything is from the base, based on all the recent FAQ the base isn't ignored for anything except for shooting. Moving from base, Assaulting to the base or contacting the hull if you're tall enough, contesting objectives from the base, disembarking from the base.

Here are all the relevant FAQ entries:

Games Workshop Imperial Guard FAQ wrote:Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

Nothing about movement or how the vehicle is deployed there. In fact, quite the opposite - you're told to use the skimmer rules, which say ignore the base for all purposes except assault.

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:
Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.

Nothing here about movement or how the vehicle is deployed.

So where are you getting that movement/how it is deployed must be measured from the base? The rulebook tells you to ignore the base. The above two FAQ answers are the only caveats to those rules.

So, in short: For the purposes of contesting/controlling, for embarking/disembarking, to see if it is over friendly/enemy models and to see if it is in terrain, and for assault, use the base. For all other inquiries, use the hull. Nothing there about board edge, movement, how it should be deployed or anything else. Thus, you use the skimmer rules.

You may measure from the base for movement because it is easy, but that is not how you're supposed to measure distances from those models. You're supposed to measure distances from their hull. If their hull is off of the board edge, it has moved or deployed illegally.

puma713 wrote:

JBW wrote:
Puma, everything is from the base, based on all the recent FAQ the base isn't ignored for anything except for shooting. Moving from base, Assaulting to the base or contacting the hull if you're tall enough, contesting objectives from the base, disembarking from the base.

Here are all the relevant FAQ entries:

Games Workshop Imperial Guard FAQ wrote:Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

Nothing about movement or how the vehicle is deployed there. In fact, quite the opposite - you're told to use the skimmer rules, which say ignore the base for all purposes except assault.

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:
Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.

Nothing here about movement or how the vehicle is deployed.

So where are you getting that movement/how it is deployed must be measured from the base? The rulebook tells you to ignore the base. The above two FAQ answers are the only caveats to those rules.

So, in short: For the purposes of contesting/controlling, for embarking/disembarking, to see if it is over friendly/enemy models and to see if it is in terrain, and for assault, use the base. For all other inquiries, use the hull. Nothing there about board edge, movement, how it should be deployed or anything else. Thus, you use the skimmer rules.

You may measure from the base for movement because it is easy, but that is not how you're supposed to measure distances from those models. You're supposed to measure distances from their hull. If their hull is off of the board edge, it has moved or deployed illegally.

It doesn't say which type of terrain clear terrain is a terrain type. So, unlesss you're playing a game based in outer space then this says that if the base is totally on the board then the model is OK otherwise it's dead.

Leo, there is a difference between 'terrain' and 'the board'.

All terrain is on the board. To determine if the vendettas are in terrain, use the base because it says to.

'The board' is not terrain, it is the physical play area used to represent the battlefield. If you go past the boundaries on the edges of the battlefield, you are no longer on the board, and thus not in play.

The hull is used to determine if the vehicle is completely on the board, not the base.

-cgmckenzie

[quote=Leo_the_Rat*snip*

Actually 'the board' is classified as 'Clear terrain'.

"Clear terrain can be moved across without any penalty, and generally covers most of the battlefield."

Page 13 under terrain types.

Kitzz, Puma and I both agree to use INAT and reference it often. But with the rash of new FAQs it is my understanding that we are not bringing it up for this discussion.

DR, I didn't read all that, but I did run through the last 4 pages. Sheeesh, some of these guys take this way to emotionally. I think I agree that for purposes of being on the board you use either the entire base or the entire hull. While I am discussing whether the rules actually define it, I think they are not clear, but once again that's the discussion here. Puma was intending to get a specific ruling on the percentage of the base, and while our other conversation led to this, our % is specifically a percentage of the hull that includes the entirety of the base. (At least that is what I intend to discuss). One more time... I think that the complete base of the Flyer type model meets the 'completely' and 'entire' mentions in the FAQs.

MEASURING DISTANCES
A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.

VEHICLES & MEASURING DISTANCES
As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

SKIMMERS:MEASURING DISTANCES
Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both.

All of these represent the hull being a point to measure from. Well we all know that the Flyer models also use their bases a lot also. If the rules are permissive initially and

In general, players are not allowed to measure any distance except when the rules call for it (e.g. after declaring an assault or firing at an enemy, to work out a rule's area of effect, when deploying their forces, etc).

So where in the rules does it give me permission to measure from the hull to the back of the table edge. It only requires that I measure away from the imaginary line deployment line created from measuring from the center (typically) of the table.

So I ask, where does it give me permission to measure from the back of the Flyer's hull to the back table edge, or reserve table edge to determine some distance?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since it isn't allowed or even defined, I use all the FAQs to determine that at least all of the Flyer's base must be on the table.

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:
Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.

The above covers if the skimmer is considered to be in terrain.

If the skimmers base in completely within the clear terrain of the table, the model is considered in that terrain feature.

If the hull was over other models, Impassible terrain, difficult/dangerous terrain, is not counted as being in that terrain feature according to the FaQ.

So it seems that only the base needs to be in clear terrain to be in/on the gaming surface, and anything that overhangs other terrain or the edge is not counted.

obviously I could run away with that interpretation of the FAQ, but I also believe the FAQ to be referring to difficult/dangerous. So no need to entertain that thought. But it does help define what is important regarding the area of the table surface the FLyer occupies.

DeathReaper wrote:Actually 'the board' is classified as 'Clear terrain'.

"Clear terrain can be moved across without any penalty, and generally covers most of the battlefield."

Page 13 under terrain types.

Agreed. As I said above, I don't believe that the FAQ is referring to the base interacting with the clear board, but the base interacting with actual "terrain", as those were the questions that people had in regard to flyers.

JBW wrote:

Eldanar wrote:Part of the problem is that it is intrinsically unfair to have part of a model hanging off of a table, because this effectively gives that model "cover" from blast weapons that scatter to the portion that is off the table, because the blast is then off the table. It also allows the model to lengthen ranges from weapons being shot at it, again, by having an inch or two of the model hanging off of the table, which otherwise would push them closer to the shooter.

The skimmer thing is a whole different can of worms. I play it has to be all on. I've seen other people who think otherwise. The problem then becomes what is the foot print of the model, for assaulting and measuring ranges to it?

Lets say I have a side shot at a vendetta that is part on and part off of the table, at a slight angle. Lets say I am in range to shoot at the side hull near the tail, but which is off the table, but I am barely out of range for the portion of the vehicle on the table. It would be very inequitable to say my shot fails because it goes off table, and yet the vehicle is not destroyed even though it is hanging partly off the table.

These types of issues are prevented simply by taking an all-on approach for models.

Eldanar, I see the concern, and please know that I'm not intentionally attempting to get a All benefits/No drawbacks debate going here, but I do offer this:
*Removed*

**Ok, so the MRB says the vehicle is hit and doesn't mention a table edge miss. Here's the reference

If a vehicle is even partially under a template weapon, it is hit on the Armour value the firer is facing.

When firing a blast weapon against a vehicle, place the marker with the hole over any part of the vehicle's hull and then roll for scatter as normal. In the case of multiple blasts, place the hole in the center of the first marker on the vehicle's hull. If the markers scatter so that they're not over the vehicle at all, then obviously the vehicle is not affected. If a marker ends over the vehicle, it makes a big difference if the hole in the center of the marker is over the vehicle or not:

• The center of the blast marker ends over the vehicle's hull. In this case the shell or missile has hit the vehicle and exploded on it. The armour penetration roll is resolved against the Armour value facing the firer, regardless of the position of the marker, using the full Strength of the weapon. Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armour).

• The center of the blast marker ends outside the vehicle, but part of the marker covers its hull. In this case the shell or missile has missed the vehicle, and only some shrapnel clanks against the vehicle's armour. The armour penetration roll is resolved against the Armour Value facing the center of the marker, regardless of the position of the firer, and the weapon 's Strength is halved (round down).

The problem is that you are looking only at the vehicle rules. Under the rules for shooting, IIRC, if a blast marker scatters off table, it misses. If half of a vehicle is hanging off of a table, and the blast scatters over that part of the vehicle, is this then a hit or a miss?

There is an intrinsic unfairness to placing half of a model off table in order to get some movement advantage or some sort of cover or range advantage. Large models are that size for a reason. Their size has both benefits and negatives, and they should be played that way. Most people care less if part of a wing or tail slightly hangs over the table edge, but it can be played on a corner where half or more of one of the large skimmers is off the table.

Actually, I was looking at both. If you want to target a vehicle then abide by the rules for shooting at vehicles. No where does it say to make these modifications as an addition to the previous rules for blast markers. I really don't intend to debate this point although your fairness concern is valid. It might not end up being fair, but it wouldn't be the first thing that was seemingly unfair in 40k land.

*I'm not suggesting it's one or the other, but if you are worried about not hitting the vehicle, I say you would hit it.

Think of it this way.

If i went by your interpretation (assuming that i'd actually play anyone who wanted to hang their models off the board edge as you suggest ) you would be forced to allow my Monoliths to have only a guntip hanging onto the board, from which to fwackoom you, while presenting you with jack to shoot back at, and a lovely 4+ cover save

Your models have to be entirely on the board. Youa re cheating if they are not. Best of luck trying to find a game with someone if you insist on it.

If you deploy outside of your permitted zone, you have not deployed correctly.

You must deploy IN your half (for DOW). If I can measure to your vehicle and find it outside of that area you have broken a rule.

If your vehicle hull is not on the table then I can measure to it as being outside of the area. You have broken a rule.

puma713 wrote:...I don't believe that the FAQ is referring to the base interacting with the clear board, but the base interacting with actual "terrain", as those were the questions that people had in regard to flyers.

I am inclined to agree with that Puma, the FaQ cleared it up for difficult terrain and flyers with wings that stop above said terrain.

However initially it seems they allow you to overhang the board edge, from the FaQ, but I am in agreement with you and Nos that this is not allowed due to needing to be IN your deployment zone at the start of the game. and a wing (or other part of the hull) that is not in the deployment zone at the start of the game is against the rules.

And since you can not move off the table you can, at no point, stop the vehicles movement when the hull is over the board edge.

Ascalam wrote:Think of it this way.

If i went by your interpretation (assuming that i'd actually play anyone who wanted to hang their models off the board edge as you suggest ) you would be forced to allow my Monoliths to have only a guntip hanging onto the board, from which to fwackoom you, while presenting you with jack to shoot back at, and a lovely 4+ cover save

Your models have to be entirely on the board. Youa re cheating if they are not. Best of luck trying to find a game with someone if you insist on it.

Well, you are misunderstanding this topic. Your base, the thing that connects you to the surface of the table and deployment zone is what is required to be in your deployment zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I understand, if just the back tail of the Flyer is out side the 6'x4' battlefield then a mishap occurs, or it's destroyed in other cases?

Since you are willfully misunderstanding the rules, you're hardly one to throw stones.

Monoliths have no base. Just like landraiders don't

Puma 713: 'All these things are great, but they're all inferences. What tells you specifically that I cannot take a Land Raider and deploy it with its back end sitting over the board edge?'

The thread has not been specified to apply to just skimmers, or the base/whole vehicle issue.

In the case of your flier having anything sticking out over the board edge it is destroyed, as it did not come completely onto the board. Distances are measured from the hull, barring a couple of exceptions. If your vehicle does not completely clear the board edge it is destroyed. This distance would be measured from the hull, as none of the exceptions specifically allow otherwise.


The deployment rules say that when deploying reserves the movement is taken with the move measured from the edge of the battlefield (pg 94 mrb). This will be measured from the hull, as that is what the rules say. The FAQ clarifies that if it fails to move completely onto the board it is destroyed. Agaiin, this is measured from the hull per the MRB.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

As the edge of the board has been declared to be the edge of the world, anything hanging off it would not be 'completely on the board'.
Can you quote me a source saying that you may elect to take all measurements from the base? If so, please do!



Pg 71 MRB

'Measuring distances:

unlike other vehicles skimmers have a transparent 'flying base' under their hull. As normal for vehicles distances are measured to and from the vehicle's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicles weapons, access points and fire points, which work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, base or both'

The FAQ clarifies that the whole skimmer counts as being Hull. Distances are measured from the vehicle not from the base, barring someone attempting to assault you or whether your skimmer is on top of enemy/friendly models. It is also used to define whether your skimmer has landed itself in terrain, per the FAQ. It gives no permission to define whether or not the vehicle is in your deployment zone by base alone, as measurements are still taken from the hull for all other purposes, and deployment distance is not specifically allowed to be from the flying base by the FAQ.


Also possibly relevant, possibly not..:

Q: Can a unit deploy in impassable terrain? (p92)
A: Not unless it is specifically allowed to move through
impassable terrain.

Anything over the side of the board edge could be considered impassable, since you aren't allowed to deploy off the board.


'Your base, the thing that connects you to the surface of the table and deployment zone is what is required to be in your deployment zone.'

Care to find me a quote that says that? The rule is that all measurements not given exceptions are from the vehicle's hull.

Ascalam wrote:Puma 713: 'All these things are great, but they're all inferences. What tells you specifically that I cannot take a Land Raider and deploy it with its back end sitting over the board edge?'

Page 92 and the three deployment types say you can only deploy IN your deployment zone.

This area you need to be in is clearly defined for the three different deployment types.

If you are outside of this area you are not in the deployment zone.

This is 'What tells you specifically that I cannot take a Land Raider and deploy it with its back end sitting over the board edge'

no overhanging the board edge on deployment, to do so is to not be IN the deployment zone.

Ascalam wrote:Since you are willfully misunderstanding the rules, you're hardly one to throw stones.

Wow, here we go I guess. Who's throwing stones? What are you referring to?

Ascalam wrote:Monoliths have no base. Just like landraiders don't

They don't come with a flying base?

Ascalam wrote:The deployment rules say that when deploying reserves the movement is taken with the move measured from the edge of the battlefield (pg 94 mrb). This will be measured from the hull, as that is what the rules say. The FAQ clarifies that if it fails to move completely onto the board it is destroyed. Agaiin, this is measured from the hull per the MRB.

I think you should also state when you measure from the hull. This is what it says in the MRB regarding what to measure when coming on from reserves.

Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn and moved as normal.

I didn't see hull mentioned in there at all. Look, if I missed it somewhere then point it out. You're not really contributing anything that hasn't already been said, and my perception of what you are typing is just all around negative. But attempting to read tone and sarcasm via text can easily be misinterpreted.

Ascalam wrote:As the edge of the board has been declared to be the edge of the world, anything hanging off it would not be 'completely on the board'.
Can you quote me a source saying that you may elect to take all measurements from the base? If so, please do!

Where did I say this? If I did, that's not what I intended.

I'll quote you the MRB if needed but you are also likely versed in the MRB. If I cannot measure unless told to do so, then where does it tell me that I have to measure from the hull to any table edge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Puma 713: 'All these things are great, but they're all inferences. What tells you specifically that I cannot take a Land Raider and deploy it with its back end sitting over the board edge?'

Page 92 and the three deployment types say you can only deploy IN your deployment zone.
This area you need to be in is clearly defined for the three different deployment types.
If you are outside of this area you are not in the deployment zone.
This is 'What tells you specifically that I cannot take a Land Raider and deploy it with its back end sitting over the board edge'
no overhanging the board edge on deployment, to do so is to not be IN the deployment zone.

I agree with you up to you mention what you interpret. I haven't seen where it defines how much 'completely' is for anything. I think a model with a base is measured from the base when it calls to measure something. I think a model without a base uses the hull when it calls to measure something. The measurement for deployment is to, like you mentioned and others, to define the most forward position you army can be at the beginning of the game (barring any special rules). I don't think you violate the deployment frontline nor do I think a model is off the table if it's base or hull (if it has no base) is completely on (and in) the table.

I'm totally open for change in this mind set, but the opposition right now isn't providing convincing statements IMO. I however appreciate some of you keeping this constructive.

1/. you claimed that i was not understanding the topic. You aren't understanding the rules..

2/. No, they don't. They are listed as doing so on the site, but there is no flying base provided. I've bought 10 over the years, and none have ever has flying bases. I've tried mounting them on a flying base, but they snap right off...

3/. I did state when to measure from the hull:

Pg 71 MRB

'Measuring distances:

unlike other vehicles skimmers have a transparent 'flying base' under their hull. As normal for vehicles distances are measured to and from the vehicle's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicles weapons, access points and fire points, which work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, base or both'

Distances are measured from the vehicle's hull. Movement measurements are still measurements. The only times the base is relevant are when checking to see if you are over terrain/other models (which count as terrain) or when being assaulted.

4/. You measure from the vehicle (the hull- same thing except in a few cases as listed by exceptions) for movement. If there is still hull hanging off the edge of the board then that vehicle has not moved itself completely beyond the edge of the board. When moving onto the board the movement is measured from the hull of the vehicle(specifically the part considered to be at the board edge before the movement).

I apologise if i seem negative, but a screaming migraine will do that to you. I'm just trying to understand the justification for a vehicle being only partly on the board or deployment area within the rules?

Completely = completely. There is no partially completely. In essence it means that every part of the vehicle must be on the battlefield, as opposed to being off the edge of the world.

If the vehicle is completely on the table (including it's hull) it is fine. if it's base is and the rest isn't, it isn't, as the model is not completely on the table, since part of it is outside the world of the game (the table edge).


I'm open to being converted, but i'm just not seeing the rules supporting the argument that you count as completely on the battlefield if only your base is.

The rules for moving onto the table from reserve say that it is treated exactly as if they were moving onto the table from the board's edge.

Movement rules prohibit you from ending your move off the board.

Moving during reserve follows the same rules for moving, it simply starts off the board, so you cannot have hull hanging over the edge.

-cgmckenzie

". I think a model with a base is measured from the base when it calls to measure something."

You're wrong in your thinking, then. Thaats the issue.

You ignore the base on skimmers, exactly like it tells you in the rules for skimmers, right at the start of the skimmer section. So if I can measure to your hull and find it is outside of your area, ANYWHERE outside your deployment zone, then you have broken a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:". I think a model with a base is measured from the base when it calls to measure something."

You're wrong in your thinking, then. Thaats the issue.

You ignore the base on skimmers, exactly like it tells you in the rules for skimmers, right at the start of the skimmer section. So if I can measure to your hull and find it is outside of your area, ANYWHERE outside your deployment zone, then you have broken a rule.

I'm not making myself clear apparently or I'm miss typing altogether.

Ok, your right about using the hull to measure skimmers when you shoot at it and when you move. Obviously the referenced post is not what I intend, cause your right, you measure from the hull and it's super clear. I never meant to argue that. What I'm saying is that no where does it tell you to measure how far from any table edge to the hull. And if you were to measure you would be doing something illegal, right?

I agree that you start your measurement from the board edge, and move your model on based on it's movement limitations. what defines when the model is completely on the table? and where does it say that? I encourage you not to read any sarcasm, because there is non intended. The purpose of this discussion that Puma brought up is to essentially discuss that 'completely' and 'entirely' is not defined specifically in the Ref Documents. The solution in my mind, and I guess what I'm looking for is a definitive rule that tells me the hull specifically is what is required. I haven't seen it yet. Or damn it, I'm just tunnel visioned right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:The rules for moving onto the table from reserve say that it is treated exactly as if they were moving onto the table from the board's edge.
Movement rules prohibit you from ending your move off the board.
Moving during reserve follows the same rules for moving, it simply starts off the board, so you cannot have hull hanging over the edge.
-cgmckenzie

Man, I agree with you until you bring in the hull. I don't think you should be allowed to have part of the base, or (for non based models) part of the hull off the board, but there's no clear example of that. It does say however that it must be completely on, and that's where I say that the skimmers would be completely on if the base is on, as that's it's reference point to the gaming surface. There isn't a quote for that because it's interpretation obviously because completely is not defined via something I can measure or a reference to an example in the MRB. It's a flyer, now the pilot might be sweating the fact their on the edge of the world but it doesn't mean their not skilled enough to hover there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't require the MRB to define every word they use in the documents they issue, but in my mind, completely for flyers means the base. The only time the hull is placed on the board is a potential result of a damage roll. If the hull is defined by GW to be the place you measure from and too for movement and shooting, and you cannot measure unless told to do so, then what is the measurement and where does it say i can?

JBW - you are required to measure to the model in order to determine you are inside your deployment zone. This is an allowed measurement, in fact is a REQUIRED measurement.

So yes, if your hull is deployed off the table, I will measure and find you are deployng illegally

Ascalam wrote:1/. you claimed that i was not understanding the topic. You aren't understanding the rules..

that could be true too.

Ascalam wrote:2/. No, they don't. They are listed as doing so on the site, but there is no flying base provided. I've bought 10 over the years, and none have ever has flying bases. I've tried mounting them on a flying base, but they snap right off...

Huh, I thought they came with them. I swear some local guys have theirs on bases. I'll have to look into that. But for what it's worth I would say your monolith (no base) would be required to be completely on the table from where it touches the table.

Ascalam wrote:I apologise if i seem negative, but a screaming migraine will do that to you. I'm just trying to understand the justification for a vehicle being only partly on the board or deployment area within the rules?

Fair enough. I'm trying to explain it, I swear.

Ascalam wrote:Completely = completely. There is no partially completely. In essence it means that every part of the vehicle must be on the battlefield, as opposed to being off the edge of the world.

I agree with your equivalency. But then you define completeness from your understanding. And I'm looking for a reference to that in the documents.

Ascalam wrote:I'm open to being converted, but i'm just not seeing the rules supporting the argument that you count as completely on the battlefield if only your base is.

It could end in an agreement to disagree, but I'm not willing to make a big deal about it on the table, I'd likely ask to 4+ it, call a judge, or adjust to keep my opponent having fun and not feeling cheated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:JBW - you are required to measure to the model in order to determine you are inside your deployment zone. This is an allowed measurement, in fact is a REQUIRED measurement.
So yes, if your hull is deployed off the table, I will measure and find you are deployng illegally

Ok, I can work with this. But my understanding is that you are only to measure the deployment zone, hence for pitched battle, the 12" from the center. If you measure anything else aren't you doing something illegal?

No. The deployment zone is ON the table, no more than 12" from the end. The edge of the table *also* defines the edge of your deployment zone.

You cannot end movement off the table. You cannot move off the table except when fleeing. If you come on the table and leave half of your LR, valk, or anything hanging over the edge, you have ended movement off the table.

You cannot say that the hull doesn't count if it has a base. The skimmer rules say that the hull is used for all measurements with some specific exceptions, movement not being one. When the rules or FAQ say that a unit that fails to come completely onto the board from reserves is destroyed, that counts for vehicles and infantry alike. Any hull hanging over the edge will destroy the vehicle just as any base hanging over the edge will destroy the unit that base is part of.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:You cannot end movement off the table. You cannot move off the table except when fleeing. If you come on the table and leave half of your LR, valk, or anything hanging over the edge, you have ended movement off the table.
You cannot say that the hull doesn't count if it has a base. The skimmer rules say that the hull is used for all measurements with some specific exceptions, movement not being one. When the rules or FAQ say that a unit that fails to come completely onto the board from reserves is destroyed, that counts for vehicles and infantry alike. Any hull hanging over the edge will destroy the vehicle just as any base hanging over the edge will destroy the unit that base is part of.
-cgmckenzie

Ah, ok. I see now (sorry if it took a minute) why the other thread (DR mentioned) was debating on/off. Well, I don't intend to restart that. But semantically if you can let go of the model and it stays on the table, then it would be on the table, other wise it would fall and then be off the table. The wobbly model rules are only mentioned for terrain, and I'm not interested in discussing the clear terrain argument.

Now GW comes back (or maybe they did this at the same time) and says, well it must be 'completely' on the table. Well how do I determine if it is 'completely' on the table? Do I measure, and if I do, I would use the hull, but where does it tell me to measure? and from where?

Nos, the measuring for deployment takes place from the center of the board (or a line therein), not the back edge. But even if it did, it still wouldn't tell me the answer. The deployment boundaries are for measuring the distance between the two forces, which I agree that you would use the hull to determine that I was 12" (for example) from the center line of the table. Where does it say how far the hull needs to be from the back edge? I even agree that you would use the back edge to determine it if it told me to measure that, or check that from the model's hulls. I just can't see it anywhere.

Rimmy wrote:the RAW state that the entire hull or base of a bodel (which covers everything) must be completely on the table at the time of deployment or movement. any part of the model moved, deployed or otherwise, that is off the board, is considered out of the game as it has left the active battle.

its simple. the percentage is 100% on is on, anything LESS than 100%, is off the table and therefore removed from play.

because a slkimmer is a based model, its base must be fully on the board to be playable.

any vehicle (or otherwise) model that does not have a base (which includes the monolith) its hull must be on the table.

Uh, the monolith does have a base though and *is* a skimmer. The base is built into the model, the four little nubs sticking out of the bottom. If memory serves, they're the correct diameter and height as if it was on a standard skimmer base.

JBW wrote:But semantically if you can let go of the model and it stays on the table, then it would be on the table, other wise it would fall and then be off the table. The wobbly model rules are only mentioned for terrain, and I'm not interested in discussing the clear terrain argument.

If you are told to park in a parking space and you have 2 wheels in across the paint into the next did you follow the instructions? No. To be on the table you must be on the table, you cannot be partially on the table.

Melchiour wrote:

JBW wrote:But semantically if you can let go of the model and it stays on the table, then it would be on the table, other wise it would fall and then be off the table. The wobbly model rules are only mentioned for terrain, and I'm not interested in discussing the clear terrain argument.

If you are told to park in a parking space and you have 2 wheels in across the paint into the next did you follow the instructions? No. To be on the table you must be on the table, you cannot be partially on the table.

FYI: If you park next to a HANDICAP spot and your wheels touch the line of that spot, you can get a ticket for parking in a handicap spot.

JBW - so, when they tell you the board is a 6x4 playing area, and you must deploy ON the board, that means if you are not in the 6x4 area you have definitely deployed illegally.

Melchiour wrote:

JBW wrote:But semantically if you can let go of the model and it stays on the table, then it would be on the table, other wise it would fall and then be off the table. The wobbly model rules are only mentioned for terrain, and I'm not interested in discussing the clear terrain argument.

If you are told to park in a parking space and you have 2 wheels in across the paint into the next did you follow the instructions? No. To be on the table you must be on the table, you cannot be partially on the table.

But my parking job is fine, all my wheels are in the parking space. What I understand everyone is arguing is that my doors are open, and because they are, I'm somehow not parking in (or on) the parking space. While I understand the doors might be a poor example of the wings of a Flyer, that's really the only example that would apply to the Flyer.

You are referring to a vehicle and specifically mentioning it's relationship to the surface. That's really what I've been trying to get at, but everyone is debating the hull. The Flyer never lands throughout the game, unless it's Imm or Wrecked. So if my wheels/base is in/on the table completely then I am legally parked.

I'm trying to think of other example similar to that but still has wheels. If a Rig is carrying a helicopter and its blades are extended out over the Rig, and it goes to the weigh station. Are they going to say the Rig can't fit on the scales because of the copter?

Kel, I did not know that, good food for thought. I wonder if that's nationally.

Nos, I'm gonna have to disagree, 'on' and 'in' are not equivalent.

JBW wrote:
. While I understand the doors might be a poor example of the wings of a Flyer, that's really the only example that would apply to the Flyer.

You are told to park your plane in hanger B, your wings and tail are hanging outside hangar B. Did you follow instructions?

If you didn't snicker after you posted this, wondering 'What's this guy going to say to this?', you should have. Cause I got nothing. I laughed and thought, that makes sense, why didn't I think of that.

Now just show me where there's a wall around the table edge and I'm sold!

**I get that you were clarifying 'in', and I must deploy in the deployment zone. But the hanger and deployment zone have different physical characteristics. This is helping though. I'm gonna look around in the MRB with this in mind.

Also if your looking for more go to the mission types. They say things such as "Deploy in your half of the table." If your off the board even slightly you are not within your half. Also walls are not needed to define an area.

Yeah, I know, I've referenced the deployment instructions. I'll do it again so we can have it here.

The player that goes first then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He then deploys his force in his half of the table, with all models more than 12" away from the table's middle line (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the opposite half and more than 12” from the table’s middle line.

That's likely what I'll ask my opponent. "Are we playing that the edge of the table as a surface edge, or a wall when determining what is in the battlefield?".

Let me ask a similar question from a different POV.
So, you see the Flyer's hull as being 2D when it involves the table edge? But not for occupying the same space as other models on the surface (depending on height), nor for determining when it is in terrain...

I grind my teeth at mentions of 2D.

It isn't a matter of 2 dimensional space. The battlefield ends at the edge of the board, ANYTHING past that edge, fully or partially, is destroyed. If you have hull hanging over the edge, the vehicle is destroyed. That is true for skimmers just as much as it is for tanks.

The rules determine what models occupy space in one of two ways:

1)Models with a base occupy the area of their base. If they have arms or swords hanging over the edge, that is fine because they do not actually occupy that space. The only vehicles that occupy their base are walkers.

2)Vehicles occupy the space defined by their hull. Things that are not hull include banners, guns, dozer blades, antennas, and other decorative items. Those on the flying stem measure to the oval base ONLY to disembark, contest objectives, and be in difficult/dangerous terrain. All other measurements go to the hull.

-cgmckenzie

I think you have to edit your last post, otherwise models can move onto and through the flying bases/stems. And the FAQ determines that the Base is what is used to determine whether it is over friendly models. It should also be used to determine if it is over the edge.

To be honest I don't see how it's too much different from deploying too far forward. Dark Eldar can't just nudge the bases of their raiders and ravagers up to the front line with half of the suspended vehicle hanging over... Likewise, one can't deploy skimmers with any part hanging over the backline, either. Just a thought.

Nu11nV01D wrote:To be honest I don't see how it's too much different from deploying too far forward. Dark Eldar can't just nudge the bases of their raiders and ravagers up to the front line with half of the suspended vehicle hanging over... Likewise, one can't deploy skimmers with any part hanging over the backline, either. Just a thought.

I agree with the first part of your comment. I know these long discussions can get difficult to read, but I've mentioned this previously. My view point is that the rules are permissive and you cannot measure unless you are instructed to do so. The front line deployment requires that your vehicle hull be more than 12" away from the center line of the table (assuming pitched battle). That's all you are allowed to measure. There's nothing telling you to measure to make sure that your vehicle's hulls are a certain distance from the other table edges.

JBW wrote:

Nu11nV01D wrote:To be honest I don't see how it's too much different from deploying too far forward. Dark Eldar can't just nudge the bases of their raiders and ravagers up to the front line with half of the suspended vehicle hanging over... Likewise, one can't deploy skimmers with any part hanging over the backline, either. Just a thought.

I agree with the first part of your comment. I know these long discussions can get difficult to read, but I've mentioned this previously. My view point is that the rules are permissive and you cannot measure unless you are instructed to do so. The front line deployment requires that your vehicle hull be more than 12" away from the center line of the table (assuming pitched battle). That's all you are allowed to measure. There's nothing telling you to measure to make sure that your vehicle's hulls are a certain distance from the other table edges.

Well then, obviously, the discussion falls to the definition of what's on and off the board edge. I could be wrong, but you can't hang the long end of a raider off the side of the table, can you? If not, then you can't have any part of your deployed skimmers off the table, either, since it's all considered board edge, isn't it?

Nu11nV01D wrote:Well then, obviously, the discussion falls to the definition of what's on and off the board edge. I could be wrong, but you can't hang the long end of a raider off the side of the table, can you? If not, then you can't have any part of your deployed skimmers off the table, either, since it's all considered board edge, isn't it?

Right, but the model is on the board if it's there when I let go, it's off the board when it's on the floor or in reserve. GW released a FAQ that says a model may not move off the board. They also released FAQ that says you must move onto the board 'completely' (which I say is undefined). I think that might catch some us up. I might have to edit it..

We were discussing 'in' the deployment zone, but that goes back to whether the board edge is an edge or has height.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Folks there's a couple other things that might end in my clarity/sanity that haven't been discussed.

Q: Can a vehicle that is moving on from reserves perform a tank shock?
A: Yes it can, declare the distance it is going to move along with its direction and move the tank onto the board that many inches, measuring from the board edge as for a normal from reserve. The tank shock is performed as usual. However, if the tank is forced to stop for any reason before the entire vehicle is on the board then the vehicle, and any embarked units, count as destroyed and are removed from play.

This goes back to what is the entire vehicle. Blah.

Deep strike mishaps
Teleporting or dropping onto a crowded battlefield may prove extremely dangerous, as one may arrive miles away from the intended objective or even inside solid rock! If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deep strike Mishap table and apply the results.

Can a flyer's base be within the 1", or do you guys measure from the hull?

If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed, as it scatters and deserts the battle.

This one is by far the closest to determining that if you come in contact with the board edge then the unit is destroyed. So while it helps with those folks that want to put their LR over the edge, I still see that it doesn't really effect flyers unless you are talking about the base.

Melchior, this last one might actually prove that the table edge is a 'wall' for example. Still chewing on that.

JBW wrote:... 'completely' (which I say is undefined).

You can not be serious that you do not understand what completely means...

Lets make this as easy as possible. 40K is a permissive ruleset. Where in this permissive rule set does it state explicitly that models without bases or skimmers can overhang the board edge?

Gosh, All I can say is that it doesn't say that any where specifically in the rules. I will leave you with this though.

I see folks throwing out the statement '40k is a permissive ruleset' a lot. Which made me look up the word.

From Google's dictionary:
per·mis·sive

adjective /pərˈmisiv/ 

1. Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior
* - I was not a permissive parent
* - the permissive society of the 60s and 70s

2. Allowed but not obligatory; optional
* - the Hague Convention was permissive, not mandatory

3. Allowing a biological or biochemical process to occur
* - the mutants grow well at the permissive temperature

4. Allowing the infection and replication of viruses

So saying it's a permissive ruleset seems to mean the exact opposite of what people intend it to mean.

And curiously enough, has GW ever said it's a permissive ruleset? Or is that something the internet-generals have invented?

Instead it says that I must deploy in my deployment zone so many inches from some center point determined by the deployment being played. If I have done so, in which my models are in said deployment zone then I have met the 'permissive' rule set. You likely didn't mean it but it's a bit insulting to come on and think you can make a simple statement that everyone else has been discussing diligently. I could be wrong but I think we've covered the permissive mention in previous posts. I am merely saying that if you actually follow the permissive mind set you should end up discussing what completely means.

JBW wrote:Gosh, All I can say is that it doesn't say that any where specifically in the rules. I will leave you with this though.

I see folks throwing out the statement '40k is a permissive ruleset' a lot. Which made me look up the word.

From Google's dictionary:
per·mis·sive

adjective /pərˈmisiv/ 

1. Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior
* - I was not a permissive parent
* - the permissive society of the 60s and 70s

2. Allowed but not obligatory; optional
* - the Hague Convention was permissive, not mandatory

3. Allowing a biological or biochemical process to occur
* - the mutants grow well at the permissive temperature

4. Allowing the infection and replication of viruses

So saying it's a permissive ruleset seems to mean the exact opposite of what people intend it to mean.

And curiously enough, has GW ever said it's a permissive ruleset? Or is that something the internet-generals have invented?

Instead it says that I must deploy in my deployment zone so many inches from some center point determined by the deployment being played. If I have done so, in which my models are in said deployment zone then I have met the 'permissive' rule set. You likely didn't mean it but it's a bit insulting to come on and think you can make a simple statement that everyone else has been discussing diligently. I could be wrong but I think we've covered the permissive mention in previous posts. I am merely saying that if you actually follow the permissive mind set you should end up discussing what completely means.

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I'll leave ya with this.

Good to know, and yes that wasn't fair or necessary. I do encourage both of you to engage this topic, as it should be addressed. Guess if all else I'll wait for the new INAT or the next GW FAQs or better yet, the new edition.

This question of the FAQ seems to suggest that the edge of the board is a wall. And therefore support the idea that you can not put a hull/base on the very edge of the table.

Q: What happens if, as a part of completing its move,
after ramming inflicts a Destroyed – Explodes! result, a
vehicle comes into contact with impassable terrain, the
board edge or a friendly unit? (p69)
A: The vehicle will end its move once it has come into
contact with any of the above.

Yep and the fleeing MRB mentioned above says 'comes in contact with the board edge too', but what comes in contact? the base for infantry obviously, and honestly only the base if it has one can come in contact with a board edge.

So the stopping at the board edge once it comes in contact. when does the hull of a Flyer type come in contact with the board edge? These crazy models and their piecemeal rules are changing the way I think of the game.

*Was it more specific in previous editions?

I think that you're parsing the rules too finely. "Completely" means all of... "Contact" means touching. It's not GW's responsibility to define even common terms, just game terms. A model is "completely" on the table when all of it's hull (or base as appropriate to the figure) is on the table. A model it in "contact" with the table edge, again when any part of it's hull or base comes to the edge of the table.

There is nowhere in this permissive ruleset that says you are allowed to have any part of the vehicle or base hanging over the edge. In fact, every instance in which the edge is mentioned, it says you can't or must stop upon reaching it.

And a 'complete' vehicle is the hull. So wings, chassis, wheels, engines, cockpit, etc. If any of that is past the edge of the board, your vehicle is off the board and destroyed. For walkers, infantry, and bikes, the base is what counts; if the base is past the edge, the unit is destroyed.

-cgmckenzie

Leo, I agree 'contact' means touching and 'completely' means all of. But where we disagree is that, I think you want to use the hull for something else other than to measure a distance. And I just don't see where the permissive rule set says you can do that. It actually says you cannot measure unless the rules say so.

Guys Folks, I agree that it doesn't say anywhere that you can have part of your model hanging over the edge. It doesn't, I've looked extensively. But when I read 'completely on', I read that the base must be on, as it's used for everything except moving, and being shot at. So the FAQ says the unit must move completely on, and I say that means the base. Some argue that it means a partial base. But I disagree and think that is ridiculous.

Another example is that the Skimmer can be assaulted if a model comes in contact with its base or hull. For regular skimmers it is not that uncommon for this to occur. But surely you wouldn't say a Grot is in contact with any part of the Flyer's hull just because above the grot is the hull and it would have made contact if the hull were lower. Why then, would you use the 'contact' the board edge to mean something different?

Movement is not measured to a skimmer's base, it is measured to the hull. The base is effectively ignored except when assaulting. For those on flying bases, it is also used to determine if terrain tests are needed, for contesting, and for disembarking/embarking.

'Completely on' means just that, the complete model is on the board. Not just the base, not just the wings, but the whole model(decorative elements don't count).

For assaulting, you must come in contact with either the base or the hull. If you can't reach the base, then you must reach the hull or no assault is made.

Being on or off the board isn't a 'contact' thing, it is a matter of being past the line of the edge of the play surface. I have said it before:

If hull/base is past the edge of the board, the unit is destroyed.

There is nowhere in the rules that even suggest you are allowed to have a model past that line while it is in play(being in reserves doesn't count), so why do you keep arguing that you can?

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Movement is not measured to a skimmer's base, it is measured to the hull. The base is effectively ignored except when assaulting. For those on flying bases, it is also used to determine if terrain tests are needed, for contesting, and for disembarking/embarking.

'Completely on' means just that, the complete model is on the board. Not just the base, not just the wings, but the whole model(decorative elements don't count).

For assaulting, you must come in contact with either the base or the hull. If you can't reach the base, then you must reach the hull or no assault is made.

Being on or off the board isn't a 'contact' thing, it is a matter of being past the line of the edge of the play surface. I have said it before:

If hull/base is past the edge of the board, the unit is destroyed.

There is nowhere in the rules that even suggest you are allowed to have a model past that line while it is in play(being in reserves doesn't count), so why do you keep arguing that you can?

-cgmckenzie

your giving your interpretation of what you think is completely on. And that is what I'm wanting to discuss essentially from the beginning.
But you are mentioning interpretations, because the only time it defines the edge or how you should treat it is in a 'makes contact' frame of mind. You say 'past the line', but that's not what the rules say. I say 'completely on' is based on the base for anything that has one because the only way it will make contact to have a game effect that is covered in the rules is to reference it's base. Previously I asked where does it tell me to measure the hull anywhere from the table edge other than moving on the table. And if I am on the table then my model is considered on if I let go and it stays there. Completely comes in with the FAQ, and then we go back to what is completely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's a little bit of an issue of consistency, and a bit of when can I measure, and what does 'contact' mean and where else can we reference the MRB to understand what GW intends to mean.

Again, there is nothing that suggest you can have anything past the line/over the edge/off the table and not be destroyed. Show one rule that specifically allows you to have ANYTHING out side of the playing field, not just you misunderstanding the word 'completely'.

It's a permissive ruleset. If there is nothing that says you can have a part of the model outside the playing area, then you cannot. And there is nothing that says you can have anything outside the play area. Show a specific rule quote that says you can, because everything currently indicates you cannot.

BTW, the 'play area' is defined as the 6' x 4' board/table/mat/floorspace or whatever measurements you decide to play with. Anything beyond those measurements is not in the play area and is destroyed.

-cgmckenzie

JBW, in your argument that completely isn't defined, I give you this nice quote from a different rules discussion:

Playing a game with rules -- as opposed to, say, Calvinball -- requires some level of agreement that a word (like 'dodge' for example) means what it means. The rules were written in English. Therefore, "dodge" does not mean "turnip".

I think that we can all agree that "completely" involves the entirety of 'whatever.' I think we can also agree the hull (so in this case, every non-decorative part of the skimmer: wings, body etc) is part of the model. Therefore, if part of the model (the hull) is not on the table, you are not completely on.

You're arguing that the base is the only thing in consideration, which doesn't make any sense, as you're disregarding the hull as part of the model, which is clearly untrue.

In addition, you don't need to measure to see if part of the hull is off the table. Simply sight, or a straight edge would work.

in a 'makes contact' frame of mind.

Skimmers and jump infantry move in leaps, not in a direct way. Can I jump over the table edge and so avoid the "makes contact" bit?

cgmckenzie wrote:Again, there is nothing that suggest you can have anything past the line/over the edge/off the table and not be destroyed. Show one rule that specifically allows you to have ANYTHING out side of the playing field, not just you misunderstanding the word 'completely'.

It's a permissive ruleset. If there is nothing that says you can have a part of the model outside the playing area, then you cannot. And there is nothing that says you can have anything outside the play area. Show a specific rule quote that says you can, because everything currently indicates you cannot.

BTW, the 'play area' is defined as the 6' x 4' board/table/mat/floorspace or whatever measurements you decide to play with. Anything beyond those measurements is not in the play area and is destroyed.

-cgmckenzie

Again, I have mentioned again and again, there is nothing in the Rules that says either way that something hanging over the edge is destroyed. You have created this interpretation of when a model is 'unable to completely' arrive. I haven't yet used the same debating tactics that keep getting thrown my way. But I'll see how it works. Show me where in the rule book where it says that if something is hanging over the edge it is destroyed without misunderstanding the word 'contact'. It's a permissive ruleset. I agree. And there is nothing that says you can/can't have anything hanging over the edge.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94) A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

If I've completely moved onto the board, then I have made contact with the board completely with what I could make contact with, i.e. the base, or the hull if no base.

Q: What happens if, as a part of completing its move, after ramming inflicts a Destroyed – Explodes! result, a vehicle comes into contact with impassable terrain, the board edge or a friendly unit? (p69) A: The vehicle will end its move once it has come into contact with any of the above.

Again, if you actually take a look at this, when is the Flyer going to come in contact with the impassable terrain? friendly unit? or board edge? It's with its base.

Q: When a vehicle is destroyed by a Destroyed – Explodes! result on the Vehicle Damage table you replace the vehicle with a similar sized area of difficult ground. What, if any, cover save does this area of difficult ground confer? (p61) A: It will confer a 4+ cover save to any eligible unit.

Are you then willing to take this hull fetish further. How large of a 'similar sized area' piece of terrain would you mark? I agree that anything beyond the table is destroyed, I'm not debating this. I'm debating that my base is completely in play, and that the only time an effect would occur is when I come in contact with it.

Playing a game with rules -- as opposed to, say, Calvinball -- requires some level of agreement that a word (like 'dodge' for example) means what it means. The rules were written in English. Therefore, "dodge" does not mean "turnip".

I 'completely' agree. So what does 'contact' mean to you? Maybe that's the question I need to ask my opponent every time I play. Apparently it means something different than what I'm used to.

I think that we can all agree that "completely" involves the entirety of 'whatever.' I think we can also agree the hull (so in this case, every non-decorative part of the skimmer: wings, body etc) is part of the model. Therefore, if part of the model (the hull) is not on the table, you are not completely on.

I agree, and I am insuring you that the 'whatever' is actually the part of the model that would contact the board edge (in this case the base). The hull is definitely part of the model, but to use it for anything else than coming in contact with something or measuring a distance, its not in the rules. If it is, please oh please show me where, and I will happily and appropriately bow out if it results in a destroyed result.

You're arguing that the base is the only thing in consideration, which doesn't make any sense, as you're disregarding the hull as part of the model, which is clearly untrue.

I'm disregarding the hull for Flyers because it doesn't make contact with the board edge, and that's the rules for when an effect occurs.

In addition, you don't need to measure to see if part of the hull is off the table. Simply sight, or a straight edge would work.

Now ya'll folks keep talking about a permissive rule set. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm trying to make a point. Where does it say that I am supposed to look to determine whether something is over the board edge, and tell me where it says the vehicle is destroyed or any effect occurs when it's hanging over the edge. I get that's a bit unfair, because obviously we have to use our eyes to play this game, but my point is the reference to the permissive paradigm.

"in a 'makes contact' frame of mind." Skimmers and jump infantry move in leaps, not in a direct way. Can I jump over the table edge and so avoid the "makes contact" bit?

I'm not sure I follow what you are asking. There's likely a bit of sarcasm, but to answer your question; sure, where will you place them to make contact on the board when they land? If you are playing an APOC game where two tables make an L, the jumpers can jump over the edge of the world to land on the adjoined table. I would even be ok with if you said you couldn't do that. Simply because the rules state you can not move off the the board.

For measuring, you don't measure to see if you are in terrain, it is a simple binary "yes/no", same goes for base to base contact and being completely on the board.

BRB FAQ(Last 2 versions at least)
Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
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!

Moving hull to a point where it is off the table, even if it is just the wing, is disallowed in that tidbit up there. Nowhere does it say that the model being in contact with the table is all that is needed for it to be legal. The only restriction they use is 'the edge of the table', so anything past that edge is beyond 'the edge of the world' and not fully in the play area, so it is destroyed.

Moving a vehicle to be in a position where it's hull is past the edge of the table would be illegal. Moving on from reserve is still movement, so not coming on fully is illegal. The base is irrelevant here.

You can't use Apoc games as a basis for how rules work normally; Apocalypse is a different game with large overlap in rules and models, but the simple nature of it allows for extreme flexibility in play.

Take a Tau hovertank on a normal skimmer base. It isn't on the flying stand, so it is in terrain based on hull, disembarks to and from the hull, and contests to the hull. If it is over hanging the edge, it is off the table.

Take an infantry model, namely my warboss that is doing a serious lean. His body is hanging well past his base, but if he is past the table edge with the model, not the base he is fine. That is because the rules specifically say infantry, bikes, and beasts with bases and vehicles without 'hulls' occupy the space of their base. The skimmer has a hull, so while the base is used for several specific things, being on the board is not one of them.

-cgmckenzie

So what does 'contact' mean to you?

I'm confused. Please, point out where "contact" is used in the rules, as you seem to be the only one inferring that on the board only refers to the part of the model that contacts it.

I'm disregarding the hull for Flyers because it doesn't make contact with the board edge, and that's the rules for when an effect occurs.

You're using the 5th edition rule book yes? Please, where does it mention "flyers" ANYWHERE in the book? You are talking about skimmers, just one that happens to have a large base. You're using words that are not present in the rulebook that you are inferring should exist, thereby making things more complicated than they need to be.

A valkyrie, being a skimmer, follows the rules for skimmers unless otherwise noted. This mean, the hull is used for everything except in the specific instances related in the FAQs. So, for the purposes of being on the table, you use the hull, because that is not included as an exception.

Now ya'll folks keep talking about a permissive rule set. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm trying to make a point. Where does it say that I am supposed to look to determine whether something is over the board edge, and tell me where it says the vehicle is destroyed or any effect occurs when it's hanging over the edge.

Where does it say that you are supposed to check to make sure players are within their deployment zones at all? You are required to deploy in a certain area, but nowhere does it say to check that you have done this. While both players may know that one has obviously deployed outside the deployment zone, there is no legal way to check this, and so it can't be empirically proven, thus is just an opinion with no facts.

It's a permissive ruleset. I agree. And there is nothing that says you can/can't have anything hanging over the edge.

Therefore you can't. There's nothing in the rules about marines moving as skimmers shooting dual pulse lasers as a special rule (neither for nor against), so surely you can do that as well.

JBW wrote: Now ya'll folks keep talking about a permissive rule set. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm trying to make a point. Where does it say that I am supposed to look to determine whether something is over the board edge, and tell me where it says the vehicle is destroyed or any effect occurs when it's hanging over the edge. I get that's a bit unfair, because obviously we have to use our eyes to play this game, but my point is the reference to the permissive paradigm.

Maybe you don't understand what a permissive rule set is. If the rules don't say that you can do something then you can't do it. There is no way to show that you can't do something in the game only that you are allowed to do so. So for you to say "show me where it says I can't hang pieces over the edge of the board" is an impossibility. The onus is on you to show where in the rules it says that you can.

Also, if you want to be asinine about checking the to see if something is over the board edge then I guess you have no problem with me moving my infantry 10" because you can't show me where it says that you're allowed to check how far I move. There are rules that define how big an area the game is to be played within. There are no rules that state that you can go outside those bounds (in fact the rules state that pieces must be in bounds at all times or they are destroyed).

So, as far as I'm concerned, unless you can show by rule where a model is allowed to remain in play while not completely on the table this discussion is finished.

For what it's worth, when I worked for Games Workshop the board edge was described as an invisible, infinitely tall wall that started at the physical edge of the board and went up. Any unit bases (except flying bases) that crossed that wall, even by the tiniest amount, were destroyed. Any vehicle hulls (except walkers as they have proper bases) that crossed that wall, even by the tiniest amount, were destroyed. This applied to anything that occurred during the game.

During deployment, unit bases had to fall within the confines of the deployment zone. Vehicles (not including walkers as they have proper bases) use their hull as the determining factor as to whether or not they are in the deployment zone. Flying bases are only used to physically support the model in a flying/skimming pose and to give short models something to come into contact with during an assault.

cgmckenzie wrote:For measuring, you don't measure to see if you are in terrain, it is a simple binary "yes/no", same goes for base to base contact and being completely on the board.

BRB FAQ(Last 2 versions at least)
Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
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!

Moving hull to a point where it is off the table, even if it is just the wing, is disallowed in that tidbit up there. Nowhere does it say that the model being in contact with the table is all that is needed for it to be legal. The only restriction they use is 'the edge of the table', so anything past that edge is beyond 'the edge of the world' and not fully in the play area, so it is destroyed.

Moving a vehicle to be in a position where it's hull is past the edge of the table would be illegal. Moving on from reserve is still movement, so not coming on fully is illegal. The base is irrelevant here.

This goes back once agin to defining 'off', and I understand that this particular word has been beaten to death on another thread, and I don't intend to recreate that. The 'edge' itself is clearly not a wall of effect. And you are not stating what the rules actually say, instead you add your interpretation when stating what you are still reading wrong. I'll try and be specific; you say 'so anything past the edge' which is utterly different than 'move off the table' or even 'comes in contact with the edge'. I think if you attempt to not imply a LandRaider mentality to this and look at it again, you would agree with me.

You can't use Apoc games as a basis for how rules work normally; Apocalypse is a different game with large overlap in rules and models, but the simple nature of it allows for extreme flexibility in play.

Who is doing this? A silly question was asked and the only way I could possibly see this relevant is to bring up a situation in which there was a place to put the models that jumped/moved. I'm not using Apoc games for anything other than that one question, so let's not get derailed or misinterpret what I'm trying to get across.

Take a Tau hovertank on a normal skimmer base. It isn't on the flying stand, so it is in terrain based on hull, disembarks to and from the hull, and contests to the hull. If it is over hanging the edge, it is off the table.

My point exactly. Take a Large Oval Skimmer, it's in terrain via it's base, disembarks to and from the base, and contests from the base. If it's base is hanging over the edge, it's destroyed.

Take an infantry model, namely my warboss that is doing a serious lean. His body is hanging well past his base, but if he is past the table edge with the model, not the base he is fine. That is because the rules specifically say infantry, bikes, and beasts with bases and vehicles without 'hulls' occupy the space of their base. The skimmer has a hull, so while the base is used for several specific things, being on the board is not one of them.

Gosh, you came so close to comparing the vehicle with an infantry, thought I almost had ya. The hull is only mentioned for measuring distances, determining LOS, and the off chance that something tall can contact the Large Oval Skimmer, for assault. You say that the base is used for only specific instances, but you mention every instance it could be used in the game, other than what I have. It's not specific instances, it's all the instances! I agree that the hull defines the size and shape and depth, but that is only for measuring distances, and LOS. I do appreciate you conversing with me on this, but I just don't see the logic in what you are implying. I'm not going to base my tactics on this but I'm still convinced how I would see it played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shan, please start over and read from the beginning, you are missing huge portions of the discussion here and are way out of line. Headaches or not, if you don't begin to provide some sort of informative reply, I'll simply have to ignore you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kris, this makes more sense than anything I've come across, and I can only hope that GW either mentions this to clarify these shady models as of late. Thanks for the mention, and I'll share it with my local group, as another view point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

JBW wrote: Now ya'll folks keep talking about a permissive rule set. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm trying to make a point. Where does it say that I am supposed to look to determine whether something is over the board edge, and tell me where it says the vehicle is destroyed or any effect occurs when it's hanging over the edge. I get that's a bit unfair, because obviously we have to use our eyes to play this game, but my point is the reference to the permissive paradigm.

Maybe you don't understand what a permissive rule set is. If the rules don't say that you can do something then you can't do it. There is no way to show that you can't do something in the game only that you are allowed to do so. So for you to say "show me where it says I can't hang pieces over the edge of the board" is an impossibility. The onus is on you to show where in the rules it says that you can.

Also, if you want to be asinine about checking the to see if something is over the board edge then I guess you have no problem with me moving my infantry 10" because you can't show me where it says that you're allowed to check how far I move. There are rules that define how big an area the game is to be played within. There are no rules that state that you can go outside those bounds (in fact the rules state that pieces must be in bounds at all times or they are destroyed).

So, as far as I'm concerned, unless you can show by rule where a model is allowed to remain in play while not completely on the table this discussion is finished.

Or maybe I do understand the permissive rules. I've established quite clearly I believe what permissive rules allow me to place my model on the board and even discuss what rules affect the model and when. I must respond with, the onus is currently on you to show me where and how specifically my model comes in contact with the edge to be destroyed, or explain to me how "completely onto the table" some how includes a portion of the model that the permissive rules tell me that I can only measure from, draw LOS too, and on occasion assault from, in which if it fails, is destroyed.

You are getting upset it seems and failing to provide supporting references. Are you saying that you would measure and then move further? That would be cheating, truly.

I think for now this should likely be put to rest, as I don't intend to continue trying to convince or restate what I've already covered. I think the best arguments are that you deploy your models 'in' the deployment zone, and what Kris mentioned regarding that the flying stand is merely to elevate the model. It's just a shame that there is so much interaction with that supporting base, it leaves one (and maybe only one) to believe that it actually occupies the portion of the surface of the table that is its base.

Thanks to those that actually wanted to discuss this

JBW wrote:or explain to me how "completely onto the table" some how includes a portion of the model

I am really curious about this statement, is it meant to be sarcasm?

If you truly do not understand it, let me try to explain. No that will take too long, I sum up.

By definition "completely onto the table" includes all parts of the model, and/or all portions of said model. Completely means that no tiny sliver of the model can be anywhere except on the table, for vehicles this means the hull, for non vehicles this means the base.

I hope this helps.

Take a Large Oval Skimmer, it's in terrain via it's base, disembarks to and from the base, and contests from the base. If it's base is hanging over the edge, it's destroyed.

yes, yes, yes, yes. Of course if its hull is hanging over the edge it is also destroyed as no rule allows you to circumvent that aspect of the vehicle rules.

Shan, please start over and read from the beginning, you are missing huge portions of the discussion here and are way out of line. Headaches or not, if you don't begin to provide some sort of informative reply, I'll simply have to ignore you.

If I didn't get it the first time, I'm not spending time reading the entire thread again. Restate your points in another way, and actually respond to my points. It takes far less time, and I don't have the amount of time to devote to re-reading a thread.

Basically, I'm using your own arguments to prove my point. I'm not inferring anything (I don't infer "contact" for a model being on the table). Basically, the table edge is an abstraction (the edge of the playing world), so any contact you'd have there is abstract as well.

I also again bring up that there is no rule that allows players to check that they are deployed correctly, only a rule saying you must do so. Similarly, there is no rule saying to check to make sure that you're completely on the table. Some rules have to be inferred for the sake of sanity.

Really, I'm rather confused how my reply was without point.

You are getting upset it seems and failing to provide supporting references.

And your supporting references are faulty. You are quoting certain bits of rules, and trying to claim you're exempt from others (the fact that anything dealing with vehicles is measured to the hull, unless otherwise stated such as in the faq about large flying bases and their few exceptions).

Are you saying that you would measure and then move further? That would be cheating, truly.

To be fair, no where in the rules does it say to measure how far your infantry move. It is implied by saying they can move up to 6", but nowhere does it say to measure this.

Basically half my point is your argument that the rules don't say you can measure from the vehicle to the table edge is flawed because there are so many other cases where it doesn't explicitly say to measure. The other half is that you're arguing "completely" is "this part, but not this other part" which has absolutely no grounds in either the rules or the English language.

Vehicles on the large oval flying base (LOFB from now on) follow all skimmer rules except where mentioned specifically in regards to the LOFB. So claiming that the hull is only used for measuring shooting/LOS is false, because there are plenty of other things that you could use the hull for that are not explicitly stated as being measured to the base. Have an incomplete list:

1)Determining if the model is off the table. The base is used to determine if it is in terrain for checks, but says nothing about being used for the edge of the table, so it defaults to the hull.

2)Being shot at. Shooting is measured to the gun/missile/dude-leaning-out-the-window-throwing-rocks because vehicle rules specifically say so.

3)Determining LOS to shoot at the vehicle. Shots must hit the hull, not the LOFB.

4)Creating a wreck. The vehicle becomes the wreck, not the LOFB. Same as with an explosion; the crater is based on the hull's shape, not the LOFB.

Anytime you use the LOFB to do something, it is specifically allowed in the rules to not happen to the hull solely. Literally EVERYTHING else happens to the hull. So, is the LOFB specifically allowed to be used to determine if it is on/off the board(not in/out of terrain, specifically 'the board')?

-cgmckenzie

Actually dude-leaning-out-the-window-throwing-rocks would a decorative element

Not if I pay 5 pts for a S1 AP- assault 1 rock thrower

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Vehicles on the large oval flying base (LOFB from now on) follow all skimmer rules except where mentioned specifically in regards to the LOFB. So claiming that the hull is only used for measuring shooting/LOS is false, because there are plenty of other things that you could use the hull for that are not explicitly stated as being measured to the base. Have an incomplete list:

1)Determining if the model is off the table. The base is used to determine if it is in terrain for checks, but says nothing about being used for the edge of the table, so it defaults to the hull.

2)Being shot at. Shooting is measured to the gun/missile/dude-leaning-out-the-window-throwing-rocks because vehicle rules specifically say so.

3)Determining LOS to shoot at the vehicle. Shots must hit the hull, not the LOFB.

4)Creating a wreck. The vehicle becomes the wreck, not the LOFB. Same as with an explosion; the crater is based on the hull's shape, not the LOFB.

Anytime you use the LOFB to do something, it is specifically allowed in the rules to not happen to the hull solely. Literally EVERYTHING else happens to the hull. So, is the LOFB specifically allowed to be used to determine if it is on/off the board(not in/out of terrain, specifically 'the board')?

-cgmckenzie

I've said all of those already, where does it define what is on/off the table. For the love of baby jesus, show me where it says that. And please revist the skimmer wrecked rules, cause I'll just glue all my stands to my hull. Here is more food for thought.

The Reference Below

1. When moving on from reserves, how fast are the Vendettas / Storm Ravens / Dark Eldar Flyers considered to have moved? (This is in regards to shooting more than one weapon … aka, going 6\\\” or less.)

These types of units must move on so that their flying bases are completely on the table. Keep in mind, however, that if a blast or template weapon impacts the vehicle’s components that are hanging off the table; this will hit them even though the weapon itself is no longer technically in play. Please keep in mind that this ruling only applies to vehicles with appropriate bases – you may not intentionally leave portions of vehicles such as Land Raiders hanging off the table.

And before any of you go on some crazy rant about how so-n-so can make a tournament and I'll just use their FAQ, don't. You'll simply disgrace well known tournaments. I post this link simply because it shows that a well known respected event is currently (and may not always, even on this topic) agree with me.

Tournaments are free to break rules to their likings, and many do. None of their house rules have any bearing on rules outside their events. Nova is explicitly changing rules here.

Also note that your source is outdated, as it was written before the most recent FAQ update.

If any part of your model outside of the 6'x4' playing area, it is not completely on the table.

Ah, thanks for the date mention, I looked for it, and could not find it. But still respectfully disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now we are talking Shan!

I'm not circumventing any rules. I'm completely onto the table. Giving my understanding of 'onto' I'd say that my base is the only way I can get 'onto' the table. You can't land the Flyer during the game.

Basically, I'm using your own arguments to prove my point. I'm not inferring anything (I don't infer "contact" for a model being on the table). Basically, the table edge is an abstraction (the edge of the playing world), so any contact you'd have there is abstract as well.

I also again bring up that there is no rule that allows players to check that they are deployed correctly, only a rule saying you must do so. Similarly, there is no rule saying to check to make sure that you're completely on the table. Some rules have to be inferred for the sake of sanity.

Really, I'm rather confused how my reply was without point.

As I've stated before, when would the Flyer make contact with the edge of the board?

Anywhere it says that you must be a certain distance away or that you can only move a certain distance is a requirement to measure, I can post references if needed but I think you are not depating that, but trying to make another point that I'm not yet following.

And your supporting references are faulty. You are quoting certain bits of rules, and trying to claim you're exempt from others (the fact that anything dealing with vehicles is measured to the hull, unless otherwise stated such as in the faq about large flying bases and their few exceptions).

Show me where I'm taking all the goodies and leaving all the baddies please sir. Where does it say that you use the hull to determine what is on/off the board. At least it says in deployment that it must be deployed in the zone. And even then the model is in the deployment zone if it's point of contact is completely in and on the table. The table has an edge as it says in the rule book. It's not a box, a dome, or any other enclosure.

To be fair, no where in the rules does it say to measure how far your infantry move. It is implied by saying they can move up to 6", but nowhere does it say to measure this.

Basically half my point is your argument that the rules don't say you can measure from the vehicle to the table edge is flawed because there are so many other cases where it doesn't explicitly say to measure. The other half is that you're arguing "completely" is "this part, but not this other part" which has absolutely no grounds in either the rules or the English language.

I'll post where it says you have to measure, cause I had to look for it too. But I agree with what you are saying. The measuring from the back table edge was carry over from a discussion that the rules say something about having to deploy specifically, where my response was that they only tell you to measure the distance from the center line of the deployment type.

The 'completely' discussion should really include 'onto'. It eventually was dropped and I was victim to group think and chasing debates that did not address my initial point. So I'll clarify and say 'completely onto' the table is simply getting the point at which the model can possibly contact the table completely onto the table.

You have no rules basis for the disagreement. If you are not within the 6x4 area, with a common english usage of the word "completely", you have broken the rules.

Care to explain why a landraider may not stay partially off the table but a skimmer may? Do you have any rules to back you up, or are you just right because you say so?

In addition, even the exact FAQ you quoted says that parts of skimmers outside the playing field are not on the table.

nos has it right. The game area is a 6x4 zone or whatever you agree with before the game starts. Anything with parts outside of that area is not completely in the zone. Plain and simple.

And do not quote tourney rules. So-n-so can make a tournament with the same validity of rules in the rest of play. GW's own Throne of Skulls breaks several rules and contradicts the official FAQ on numerous occasions, but that doesn't make it legal for the rest of the gaming world.

-cgmckenzie

Can I deploy my model with part of it off the table?

No, because you must deploy your model within its deployment zone, which is specified as being specific portions of the board. Just as you aren't allowed to deploy models partially outside of their deployment zone when fully on the table, the same exact logic applies to having part of the model hanging off the table.

And as secondary support, the FAQ answer about moving a model off the table uses the description that the edge of the board is to be treated like the edge of the world in a manner...which enforces the idea that the edge of the board is a cut-off to represent that the model is either completely on or completely off the table.


But with Skimmers on a large oval base, am I measuring from the base or the vehicle's hull for deployment and movement purposes?

Skimmers, even those on large oval bases, as described in the rules measure ranges to and from their hull. However, most of the Skimmer models that are on the large oval base have a few exceptions listed to this rule of when you measure to/from its base:

1) When embarking/disembarking.
2) When contesting/capturing an objective.
3) Per the rulebook FAQ, when determining if the Skimmer is on or off other models and terrain.

But in ALL other instances, the basic rules would be used and you would measure everything to the hull of the skimmer. So when a Skimmer on a large oval base has to be deployed on the board (or moved on the board) the entire model must be over the table because this is not a listed instance where you are measuring using the model's base.


As ancillary information, the rulebook FAQ also covers two other situations:

1) Vehicles failing to move all the way onto the table when arriving from Reserves.
2) Vehicles Deep Striking partially off the table.

In both instances, they have ruled that vehicles are not allowed to be partially off the table. The first instance (unable to fully arrive from reserves) means the vehicle is destroyed and the 2nd instance means that the vehicle partially off the table does not count as being on the table, as this is what causes a deep strike mishap to occur.

So in other words, in all cases GW has been very consistent: A model is not allowed to be even partially off the table...the table edge is considered the 'edge of the world' that fully determines whether or not a model is in or out of the game.

cgmckenzie wrote:Not if I pay 5 pts for a S1 AP- assault 1 rock thrower

-cgmckenzie

You obviously have never been on the business end of a rock thrower. S1 AP- my ass!

I was bored earlier, so I thought I would actually go through the relevant rule's portions to more clearly state (if possible, when dealing with GW rule's writing) the "table edge" position.


General Rule:
Unlike models with bases, vehicles measure [all] distances from the hull.

This sets up two separate things: first, that models with bases measure to and from the base, unless they are a vehicle; and second, that the hull is used for vehicles (whatever "hull" is). Hull is later defined (somewhat), by saying what does not count as part of the hull; with the implication being everything else does.

First Exception:
Range and LOS are measured from the gun barrel and along the gun mounting.

Second Exception:
Skimmers have a base, and some distances are measured to and from it, assaults, etc.

Third Exception:
From the IG FAQ:
Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

So, by RAW, valks and vendettas (only, AFAIK) have further exceptions dealing with deployment, terrain, placement over models, etc. However, for everything else they default to the normal skimmer rules; which in turn default to the normal vehicle rules for measuring distances; meaning the hull is used for everything not shooting related or specifically excepted.

I have not checked on storm ravens or other flyers in their various FAQ's, but most people tend to grandfather them in with valks and vendettas in this regard.

So far we have established that flyers are skimmers; skimmers have some specific exceptions and flyers have some specific exceptions; and for everthing not specifically excepted, they default to the normal vehicle rules.

Here is where it gets interesting...

There are a series of FAQ topics dealing with the board edge, movement onto and off of the table, etc.:

Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
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!

Q: Are a vehicle’s wings considered to be part of its
hull? (p60)
A: Yes.

Q: Can models moving out of the way of a tank shock
after passing their Morale test be forced to move off of
the board if that is the shortest distance to get out
from underneath the vehicle? (p68)
A: No, they must move the shortest distance that also
keeps them on the board.

Q: Can a vehicle that is moving on from reserves
perform a tank shock? (p68)
A: Yes it can, declare the distance it is going to move
along with its direction and move the tank onto the
board that many inches, measuring from the board
edge as for a normal from reserve. The tank shock is
performed as usual. However, if the tank is forced to
stop for any reason before the entire vehicle is on the
board then the vehicle, and any embarked units, count
as destroyed and are removed from play.

Q: What happens if, as a part of completing its move,
after ramming inflicts a Destroyed – Explodes! result, a
vehicle comes into contact with impassable terrain, the
board edge or a friendly unit? (p69)
A: The vehicle will end its move once it has come into
contact with any of the above.

Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.

Q: If a skimmer on a large oval flying base is wrecked,
and its base is completely surrounded by enemy
models, are all embarked models killed? (p71)
A: Yes.

Q: Do units off of the table at the end of a game count
as destroyed for kill point purposes? (p91)
A: Yes.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

Q: If a unit arriving by Deep Strike cannot be placed
fully on the table, must it roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap table? (p95)
A: Yes.
(Some of the above is not relevant, but I included it just for potential discrepancies.)


Based on these FAQ topics, we learn that:

1. The board edge is a finite ending point of the table. You are either on the table, or you are not.

2. Models cannot be forced off of the table, or voluntarily moved off table.

3. Vehicles that are moving on to the table and are not capable of finishing their move completely on the table, i.e., the model is not "entirely" on the table, are destroyed. Plus, units that are not completely on the table are destroyed.

The first rulebook FAQ I listed above states (in GW's inimitable fashion) that the table edge is a finite end point to the gaming area. Distances are measured to and from vehicle hulls; therefore, vehicle hulls are used when measuring to or from the finite point of the "table's edge." If the hull of any vehicle is over the table edge, it is destroyed. Further, models may not voluntarily, or involuntarily, move over the table edge, where the part that is used to measure from is over the table edge. Models with bases measure to and from the base, unless they are a vehicle, in which case they use the hull, unless there is an exception that says otherwise. There are exceptions for skimmers or flyers for hovering over terrain, embarking/disembarking, hovering over models, and assaults; however, there are no exceptions for measuring to or from the table edge, or for having part of their hull over the table edge.

Eldanar wrote:The first rulebook FAQ I listed above states (in GW's inimitable fashion) that the table edge is a finite end point to the gaming area. Distances are measured to and from vehicle hulls; therefore, vehicle hulls are used when measuring to or from the finite point of the "table's edge." If the hull of any vehicle is over the table edge, it is destroyed. Further, models may not voluntarily, or involuntarily, move over the table edge, where the part that is used to measure from is over the table edge. Models with bases measure to and from the base, unless they are a vehicle, in which case they use the hull, unless there is an exception that says otherwise. There are exceptions for skimmers or flyers for hovering over terrain, embarking/disembarking, hovering over models, and assaults; however, there are no exceptions for measuring to or from the table edge, or for having part of their hull over the table edge.

Thanks for taking the time and compiling all that. It's all thrown about in here and this needed a refresher. I agree with almost everything and especially like the 3 conclusion points. And I will attempt to point out the where you IMHO contradict yourself and restate that, 'completely onto' is determined and referenced from the base of the 'Flyer'. This doesn't break the game, nor any rules, and IMHO is what 'completely onto' refers to when discussing 'Flyers'.

You state:

Distances are measured to and from vehicle hulls; therefore, vehicle hulls are used when measuring to or from the finite point of the "table's edge."

The second is not derived from the first. I've covered this previously. Does it say at which point of the hull you measure from? I have to assume for now that you are not deriving that there's actually a measurement from the hull to the table edge. So why is it destroyed again?

there are no exceptions for measuring to or from the table edge, or for having part of their hull over the table edge.

So you can't measure from the table edge... with exception of moving on the board. Once I have done that completely with what is provided to achieve the result, Im done. You too are deriving assumptions that support your interpretations. You repeat eloquently the rules, and then mention nothing that relates to them in your final conclusion. Maybe we can find some time to put some models on the board to discus this further. Maybe it will shed some light on why somehow 'completely onto' the table is not so when my base is 'completely onto' the table.

JBW wrote:Maybe it will shed some light on why somehow 'completely onto' the table is not so when my base is 'completely onto' the table.

You're told to ignore the base. If you're using the base for anything but objectives/disembarking/or assault, then you're not ignoring the base. How can you continue to defend the position that the base defines everything that your skimmer (note, it is skimmer, not a flyer. There are no rules for flyers in standard 40K) can do, even when you're told expressly, by the rules, to ignore it.

FNP tells you to ignore an injury. Do you still take the wound on your models even though you're told to ignore it? I doubt it. You keep insisting on the base fitting, then everything is good. But you're told to ignore the base if it is not in the above situations.

You keep going back to being "completely onto the table". You ignore the base for this. There are no two ways about it. The rules do not tell you to use the skimmer's base for deployment or for measurement. The base is ignored. Pure and simple. So, therefore, to measure how you are "completely onto" the table, it must be done from the hull. If your hull is not "completely onto the table", as you've been saying, then it is an illegal move/deployment.


Short and sweet: If we're not talking about assault/disembarking/contesting objectives or being over friendly/enemy models, then leave the "base" out of the conversation. It is ignored in all instances that are not mentioned here.

For vehicles to move onto the table you have to measure from the hull up to the distance you want to move, once the vehicles movement is completed the vehicle must be completely moved onto the board, no part of the hull may be off the table. If a part of the hull is off the table the vehicle has not completely moved onto the board.

This is permission to measure to check if any part of the hull is off the board.

Referenced in the FaQ:

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

Since there are no rules exempting the SR/Valks from measuring to the hull(the standard for ALL vehicles) during movement, you must do that. There is also no exemption for the hull for getting on the table, so you measure to the hull again. If the hull is off the board, even in the slightest, you sailed to move your entire model on and it is destroyed.

-cgmckenzie

JBW wrote: Maybe it will shed some light on why somehow 'completely onto' the table is not so when my base is 'completely onto' the table.

As was stated above, here is your problem.

The base for a vehicle is not used ever, except to support the model, and in specific curcumstances where it has otherwise been excepted. There are numerous exceptions listed for skimmers and for flyers (assuming all flyers and not just valks and vendettas). Nowehere is the table edge referred to as a terrain feature; and nowhere is there an exception listed for not measuring the distance from the hull of a vehicle to the board edge. If any part of your hull crosses that imaginary threshold, then you have gone over it.

The problem I think from your perspective, is that GW never defines "hull;" they only say what is not considered part of the hull. So, we are left with two alternatives for determining what the hull is: we either use a common English definition, or we take the hull to be the entire model less any portions specifically mentioned as not being part of the hull.

So, to answer your question, "what part of the hull do we measure from?" Any part of the model designated as the "hull." And what constitutes the hull? The entire model less portions specifically listed as not being part of the hull.

I don't like the way that GW writes its rules because it either doesn't define terms, or it uses negative inferences to do so. We have examples of both here. I've been playing GW games for almost 20 years, and they have always written their rules like this.

The model has to be on the table. The base is only part of the model. If any part of the model, independent of that part being hull or not, is off the table, your vehicle dies. Really no room to wiggle here.

No, I'm not debating what is the hull in any way, shape, or form. Just what degree a Flyer can completely be in/on the table.

Hmmmm, I did think about something. Some of you may slap your forehead at this.

Let's assume the 'Flyer' is on the table and wants to get as close to the edge as it can. Now I can agree that you can't measure to a point off the table. And a skimmer doesn't need to pivot to move. So I can measure from any part of the hull to the board edge, and that would be how far I can move. But this still allows me be hanging over the edge in some cases, depending on point of the hull I measured from.

I get it, you say everything, I say the base. Not sure what else to say here other than we disagree. I'll just have to wait until GW fixes this with edition, or FAQ. Locally we use INAT, so maybe it will shed light on what the tournament scene might expect. NOVA OPEN Faq V3 is supposed to be released sometime soon also.

I have a feeling it will be similar to the Deff Rolla ruling.

I'm ok with either way, if my opponent feels strongly about how it will effect their game play. But I just don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldanar wrote:Based on these FAQ topics, we learn that:

1. The board edge is a finite ending point of the table. You are either on the table, or you are not.

2. Models cannot be forced off of the table, or voluntarily moved off table.

3. Vehicles that are moving on to the table and are not capable of finishing their move completely on the table, i.e., the model is not "entirely" on the table, are destroyed. Plus, units that are not completely on the table are destroyed.

This is awesome by the way! But the rest of your understanding is misinterpretation IMHO. Could GW come back and say "for the guy who thinks only the base is require here's your FAQ". Absolutely. And I would move on from there with my straight edge and string and weight to find out where exactly my hull is over. But until then, I just have to say there is wiggle room in my head.

You disagree based on no actual rules, however. Youve been shown to ONLY count the base for X objects; whether you are on or off the board is not one of those X objects, therefore you cannot use the base.


Its that simple.

JBW wrote: But until then, I just have to say there is wiggle room in my head.

So, just to be clear: The rulebook tells you to ignore the base for all purposes except a few mentioned in the FAQ. But you're not ignoring the base. How is this not breaking the rules?

JBW wrote: Hmmmm, I did think about something. Some of you may slap your forehead at this.

Let's assume the 'Flyer' is on the table and wants to get as close to the edge as it can. Now I can agree that you can't measure to a point off the table. And a skimmer doesn't need to pivot to move. So I can measure from any part of the hull to the board edge, and that would be how far I can move. But this still allows me be hanging over the edge in some cases, depending on point of the hull I measured from.

I understand what you are saying. Where your argument falls apart though is that you should measure from the closest linear point, not the farthest. IIRC, there is even a reference for this in the vehicle movement rules. GW introduced this specifically back in the day (in a prior edition with slightly different rules) when people used to declare they were moving their skimmer in a circle in order to get their jink save, all while not moving their model at all. I believe this proscription was carried over into the current edition.

And before you go there, I'll go ahead and say that the rules do not allow you to pivot your model in such a way that part of it crosses the table edge either.

You are basing your interpretation on an RAI approach. I do not necesarilly disagree with your approach, in that in most instances it makes game play easier. However, as with the Nova faq, altering this specific rule causes the rules for shooting to also need to be modified; and it doesn't even address assaulting (in the rare instance when the portion off table might be closer and in range for an assaulter, whereas the portion on table is out of range).

JBW wrote:No, I'm not debating what is the hull in any way, shape, or form. Just what degree a Flyer can completely be in/on the table.

100%

That is what is required of completely to be in/on the table anything less than 100% is not completely in/on.

If the hull is off the table/past the edge, then the entire model is not on the board. Clear cut and simple.

And, btw, this is nothing like the deff rolla in the slightest. A deff rolla is not hull, not a weapon, but simply there. It is a decorative item with rules that treat it like hull in certain instances, namely ramming/tank shock. Theoretically, I could have my deff rolla hanging over the edge all day because it is not hull.

-cgmckenzie

JBW wrote:I get it, you say everything, I say the base.

Basically the core of your argument. This is in direct contradiction to what WH40k rules say, so there isn't really a need to discuss this anymore.

The whole thing has nothing to with measurement. Just with your model being on the table. Not the hull, not the base, some parts minus others. The model. Everything you glued to that thing that makes up your vehicle. If any part of that is not on the playing field, the model is not on the playing field. In addition, the rules even tell us to ignore the base, so figuring anything out by using the base unless explicitly told to do so, is breaking the rules.

*Sigh*, I completely agree with you. It has nothing to do with measurement. And believe it or not, I've said this many times over the post # of posts. The discussion sometimes is derailed by side debates that need to be cleared before further core topic discussion can continue.

Where we agree to disagree is simply that the whole model is on the table completely if the portion of it that can be on the table is completely on the table.

The FAQs have not been updated to clarify this FAQ that people are hanging their hat on.

Figuring anything out by using the hull unless explicitly told to do so is breaking the rules. Where does it say an effect occurs based on the hull. This is the core discussion of the topic.

And if my model is on the table anywhere else other than the edge, you would not argue that the model is on the table, so if it's near the edge, it is still on the table. The discussion is still regarding 'completely onto' or else destroyed.

Am I completely onto the table if I'm in the middle? I can be over everything that is not under the base. Where does it say that my model is destroyed if it is hanging. Where does it give permission to destroy it? I know this is a bit of DSICSIC (doesn't say i can't so i can). But it does bring up the discussion of whether it is destroyed.

It's really just a difference of opinion. And interpretation of maybe RAI.

These models have been a pain to play ever since they came out, and now they've cleared up so much with the latest FAQs. Yet somehow there's still confusion regarding whether the huge models can be close to the edge of the table. Well if the gaming surface is supposed to 6x4 then I intend to use all of the 6x4.

Guess I'll just take the model off the stand until it's time to measure distances or shoot from/to it. That way it's not hanging over the edge. Everything else is dealt with from the base.

Its not a difference of opinion; we have rules that back our position, you dont.

JBW wrote:*Sigh*, I completely agree with you. It has nothing to do with measurement. And believe it or not, I've said this many times over the post # of posts. The discussion sometimes is derailed by side debates that need to be cleared before further core topic discussion can continue.

Where we agree to disagree is simply that the whole model is on the table completely if the portion of it that can be on the table is completely on the table.

You are told to ignore the base to figure out whether you are on the table or off the table. If your claim that the actual model is ignored, too, all large skimmers would always be destroyed when arriving from reserve, as they can never move onto the table.

The FAQs have not been updated to clarify this FAQ that people are hanging their hat on.

Figuring anything out by using the hull unless explicitly told to do so is breaking the rules. Where does it say an effect occurs based on the hull. This is the core discussion of the topic.

Nope, it's not breaking the rules. The hull is part of the model and you are not told to ignore it, unlike the base. You are told to check whether your model is on the table, including it's entire hull. No part of the hull, no decorative elements, no gun barrels and no dozer blades may not, partially or entirely, be off the table to any extend for any vehicle. Including those on a flying stand.

And if my model is on the table anywhere else other than the edge, you would not argue that the model is on the table, so if it's near the edge, it is still on the table. The discussion is still regarding 'completely onto' or else destroyed.

Yup, it's still on the table if parts of it are not. But not completely, which is what matters. The rules do not tell the vehicle to move onto the table, but to move completely onto the table. Otherwise, fireworks.

Am I completely onto the table if I'm in the middle? I can be over everything that is not under the base. Where does it say that my model is destroyed if it is hanging. Where does it give permission to destroy it? I know this is a bit of DSICSIC (doesn't say i can't so i can). But it does bring up the discussion of whether it is destroyed.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

There is the permission to destroy it and remove it from play.

It's really just a difference of opinion. And interpretation of maybe RAI.

These models have been a pain to play ever since they came out, and now they've cleared up so much with the latest FAQs. Yet somehow there's still confusion regarding whether the huge models can be close to the edge of the table. Well if the gaming surface is supposed to 6x4 then I intend to use all of the 6x4.

If your wing is hanging over the edge, you are using more than that. A big skimmer may not hang off the edge any more than a small skimmer. Or for that matter, any model. I'd love parking my battlewagons with everything but the deff rolla hanging off the table vs demons, but can't do that either.

Guess I'll just take the model off the stand until it's time to measure distances or shoot from/to it. That way it's not hanging over the edge. Everything else is dealt with from the base.

That would be illegal. The rules require models to be attached to their bases that were supplied with them. You may only remove bases from wrecked or immobilized skimmers. "Everything else is dealt with from the base." would also be incorrect and not what the rules tell you.

JBW wrote:*Sigh*, I completely agree with you. It has nothing to do with measurement. And believe it or not, I've said this many times over the post # of posts. The discussion sometimes is derailed by side debates that need to be cleared before further core topic discussion can continue.

Where we agree to disagree is simply that the whole model is on the table completely if the portion of it that can be on the table is completely on the table.

The FAQs have not been updated to clarify this FAQ that people are hanging their hat on.

Figuring anything out by using the hull unless explicitly told to do so is breaking the rules. Where does it say an effect occurs based on the hull. This is the core discussion of the topic.

And if my model is on the table anywhere else other than the edge, you would not argue that the model is on the table, so if it's near the edge, it is still on the table. The discussion is still regarding 'completely onto' or else destroyed.

Am I completely onto the table if I'm in the middle? I can be over everything that is not under the base. Where does it say that my model is destroyed if it is hanging. Where does it give permission to destroy it? I know this is a bit of DSICSIC (doesn't say i can't so i can). But it does bring up the discussion of whether it is destroyed.

It's really just a difference of opinion. And interpretation of maybe RAI.

There is another issue with playing as you are suggesting: Lets say you have your flyer with a third of it hanging off of the table, as you have suggested. It gets shot and immobilized. It is then dropped immediately to the playing surface in the same position which it was in, which in turn would mean that a third of it is off of the table. This would effectively destroy it. Whatever rules it had as a skimmer/valk/vendetta are gone as soon as the flying stand/base is removed. And I have not seen anyone argue that normal vehicles can hang off of the table.

These models have been a pain to play ever since they came out, and now they've cleared up so much with the latest FAQs. Yet somehow there's still confusion regarding whether the huge models can be close to the edge of the table. Well if the gaming surface is supposed to 6x4 then I intend to use all of the 6x4.

Guess I'll just take the model off the stand until it's time to measure distances or shoot from/to it. That way it's not hanging over the edge. Everything else is dealt with from the base

No disagreement with you here. Unfortunately, there are no rules for flyers in standard 40K, only for skimmers; and as such they follow all the rules that other skimmers follow (with one or two additional exceptions). TBH, they are not that much bigger than a hammerhead or monolith, and somehow those models are still able to function within the confines of the puny 6x4' table.

JBW, you are wrong. The game space for a standard mission is 6 feet by 4 feet. If you have a model occupying space outside of that, it is not completely in the play area and is destroyed. Physical contact with the table is not needed for every single bit of the model, it simply has to occupy only space inside the borders defined at the beginning of the game.

You do not have permission to have a model occupy any amount of space outside of the play area once it has come into play. What we do have is permission to destroy models/units that are not completely in the play area.

-cgmckenzie

PS-BTW, Jidmah, decorative elements can be outside of the play space because the model does not occupy that area. Vehicles only occupy the space of their hulls, so since no measurements can happen to the decorative items anyway, they can be outside of the play area as long as all the weapons and hull is inside.

Eldanar wrote:There is another issue with playing as you are suggesting: Lets say you have your flyer with a third of it hanging off of the table, as you have suggested. It gets shot and immobilized. It is then dropped immediately to the playing surface in the same position which it was in, which in turn would mean that a third of it is off of the table. This would effectively destroy it. Whatever rules it had as a skimmer/valk/vendetta are gone as soon as the flying stand/base is removed. And I have not seen anyone argue that normal vehicles can hang off of the table.

No disagreement with you here. Unfortunately, there are no rules for flyers in standard 40K, only for skimmers; and as such they follow all the rules that other skimmers follow (with one or two additional exceptions). TBH, they are not that much bigger than a hammerhead or monolith, and somehow those models are still able to function within the confines of the puny 6x4' table.

Check your MRB regarding an immobilized skimmer, that's not entirely what it says and you're cherry-pick'n.

I see the point with the Hammerhead and Monolith, but you can actually assault these at the hull and are required, considering where the flying base cannot be reached. This is not the same as the 'Flyer' types.

Do you feel that the 6x4 is confining? I do too, especially since they put this invisible box around it, or is it a dome?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:JBW, you are wrong. The game space for a standard mission is 6 feet by 4 feet. If you have a model occupying space outside of that, it is not completely in the play area and is destroyed. Physical contact with the table is not needed for every single bit of the model, it simply has to occupy only space inside the borders defined at the beginning of the game.

Your error IMHO is that the Model is on the same plane (no pun intended) as the table. It is not obviously, and therefore not destroyed. Oh the issue with playing a 3D game on a 2D board? Wait it's not 2D the Flyer can't be inside a wall of a tall building. But yet somehow the Flyer is destroyed if its hull occupies space over the edge of the world.

You can assault large skimmers at their hull, too. There is a legendary tale a friend of mine tells of my warboss jumping onto his vendetta from the second level of a ruin and punching it out of the sky.

Your error IMHO is that the Model is on the same plane (no pun intended) as the table. It is not obviously, and therefore not destroyed. Oh the issue with playing a 3D game on a 2D board? Wait it's not 2D the Flyer can't be inside a wall of a tall building. But yet somehow the Flyer is destroyed if its hull occupies space over the edge of the world.

Your error is, that you are not playing WH40k, but try to roleplay a battle. Real life has absolutely nothing to do with how the game is played. If any part of your model is not on the table, it is not completely on the table. Unless you can prove, by providing rules, that a Stormraven may have parts of the table while a landraider may not, you are wrong.

JBW wrote:

Eldanar wrote:There is another issue with playing as you are suggesting: Lets say you have your flyer with a third of it hanging off of the table, as you have suggested. It gets shot and immobilized. It is then dropped immediately to the playing surface in the same position which it was in, which in turn would mean that a third of it is off of the table. This would effectively destroy it. Whatever rules it had as a skimmer/valk/vendetta are gone as soon as the flying stand/base is removed. And I have not seen anyone argue that normal vehicles can hang off of the table.

No disagreement with you here. Unfortunately, there are no rules for flyers in standard 40K, only for skimmers; and as such they follow all the rules that other skimmers follow (with one or two additional exceptions). TBH, they are not that much bigger than a hammerhead or monolith, and somehow those models are still able to function within the confines of the puny 6x4' table.

Check your MRB regarding an immobilized skimmer, that's not entirely what it says and you're cherry-pick'n.

I see the point with the Hammerhead and Monolith, but you can actually assault these at the hull and are required, considering where the flying base cannot be reached. This is not the same as the 'Flyer' types.

Do you feel that the 6x4 is confining? I do too, especially since they put this invisible box around it, or is it a dome?

Spoken like a true Ork player. When I started playing the various GW games back in the early '90's, the store I played at used standard 8x4' tables. IIRC, there was no standard playing table size for either 40K or WHFB (which is what I actually learned first).

Some models, like a greater daemon (particularly a FW model), etc., are possibly large enough to physically come in contact with a flyer even on its base, so that argument doesn't really fly completely (ha ha, I made a pun ).

I am aware that glued on bases, etc., do not have to be removed. However, I have yet to see a glued on flying base to a valk, vendetta, etc. I am sure there are some out there, but I have not seen them yet. Then again this reasoning provides yet another rationale for why hanging over the table edge should not be allowed for skimmer/flyers with glued on bases, because it would provide an unfair advantage in circumstances where it has become immobilized while over the table edge.

Jidmah wrote:You can assault large skimmers at their hull, too. There is a legendary tale a friend of mine tells of my warboss jumping onto his vendetta from the second level of a ruin and punching it out of the sky.

That is so epic and cool, I almost want to agree with you just for comment alone. But the rest of your post escapes me 'completely'.

Eldanar wrote:Some models, like a greater daemon (particularly a FW model), etc., are possibly large enough to physically come in contact with a flyer even on its base, so that argument doesn't really fly completely (ha ha, I made a pun ).

I am aware that glued on bases, etc., do not have to be removed. However, I have yet to see a glued on flying base to a valk, vendetta, etc. I am sure there are some out there, but I have not seen them yet. Then again this reasoning provides yet another rationale for why hanging over the table edge should not be allowed for skimmer/flyers with glued on bases, because it would provide an unfair advantage in circumstances where it has become immobilized while over the table edge.

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

The true fallacy of your position comes from the firing rules.

Your "logic" comes undone because a scattering blast, with its hole over your hull, could automiss because it is off the table.

The true inanity of your position really should be apparent by now. You have no rules support; NONE whatsoever, for your position.

JBW wrote:

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

Hence, you're note ignoring the base. The rules specifically tell you to ignore the base. Why are you dodging this?

It isn't an issue about creating an unfair advantage - it is an issue of following the rules. It does create an unfair advantage when Reserves come around, so establishing an understanding in something as simple as Deployment, I thought we'd have a foundation to discuss more complex issues. I honestly didn't think that understanding that a model may not hang off the board edge would be this difficult. A terminator can't do it, a land raider can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space of where a base would be instead) and a skimmer can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space where the base would be, since you're told to specifically ignore the base for measurement/movement, etc.).

You have this stalwart defense about the base, but it is the biggest flaw in the argument, because you're told to ignore it.

JBW wrote:

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

Ahhh...but could my model get into position to make that assault to begin with? Therein is the rub, and what is intrinsically unfair about playing with these large models in this fashion. If you are 2-3" further back over your table edge, then that is 2-3" more my models will have to travel in order to reach you so as to make an assault. No one has argued that somehow they are losing part of their 6" assault; rather, it is now more difficult to move up to get in range to be able to make that 6" assault. You are trying to minimize the space your model occupies by moving part of it off table so as to protect it, and this presents an unfair advantage. Basically, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

However, you have presented nothing in the rules to support your position. All you have argued are semantics, and empy references to non-existent RAI, but no actual rules. At this point I can only surmise that you are arguing merely to argue...

Eldanar wrote:

JBW wrote:

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

Ahhh...but could my model get into position to make that assault to begin with? Therein is the rub, and what is intrinsically unfair about playing with these large models in this fashion. If you are 2-3" further back over your table edge, then that is 2-3" more my models will have to travel in order to reach you so as to make an assault. No one has argued that somehow they are losing part of their 6" assault; rather, it is now more difficult to move up to get in range to be able to make that 6" assault. You are trying to minimize the space your model occupies by moving part of it off table so as to protect it, and this presents an unfair advantage. Basically, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

However, you have presented nothing in the rules to support your position. All you have argued are semantics, and empy references to non-existent RAI, but no actual rules. At this point I can only surmise that you are arguing merely to argue...

Really, have you not read anything before your posts? You must be referring to my last post only. Sure, so my last post didn't have any quoted FAQ MRB. It's all covered before.

Granted I could glue the stand and the model so that I would get and advantage, but there are already tourney rules to cover this. If a majority of your models are only going to be able to assault the base anyways, what difference does it make. And it doesn't tell me to ignore the base for what we are discussing, it say that you assault the base and the hull. Surely I don't need to post the reference over and over again, but I will. Just let me know. You're arguing that there is some advantage to not having access to the hull when you don't typically have access anyways. The models that could reach the hull have even more access than the models that are vertically challenged; there's more to assault up there folks. Hence nothing has changed; the only ground your losing is in your argument . You say it's unfair to have to move an perceived extra distance, but yet you want the 'Flyer' to somehow be required to move further on the table than the rules require. Where's the cake? Cause If I'm eating it then someone else has already taken a bite.

puma713 wrote:Hence, you're note ignoring the base. The rules specifically tell you to ignore the base. Why are you dodging this?

It isn't an issue about creating an unfair advantage - it is an issue of following the rules. It does create an unfair advantage when Reserves come around, so establishing an understanding in something as simple as Deployment, I thought we'd have a foundation to discuss more complex issues. I honestly didn't think that understanding that a model may not hang off the board edge would be this difficult. A terminator can't do it, a land raider can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space of where a base would be instead) and a skimmer can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space where the base would be, since you're told to specifically ignore the base for measurement/movement, etc.).

You have this stalwart defense about the base, but it is the biggest flaw in the argument, because you're told to ignore it.

How am I supposed to ignore the base? From Assaulting, Deploying, Contesting, or even placement in terrain, or even better and the solution to this what portion of the table it occupies, and what portion in volume essentially it occupies vertically. The Flyer type's hull does not occupy the space that the base would be. That's just silly . It has a base.

Can a DE Raider move so that its hull would be over a model? No. Can a 'Flyer'? Yes. You just said that a skimmer's hull occupies where the base would be. But this doesn't apply to 'Flyer' types. You can have models under the hull of the Flyer. So your point is mute. It's the base that determines when and where it is on the table. And just like every other model where it comes in contact with other models allows an effect or action occur.

You can keep your perceived intellect jabs to yourself, as I too don't understand why this is so difficult for others to understand, but I'm actively engaging it and attempting to resolve it.

JBW, you have no rules backing you up. Plain and simple, you are wrong. Period. To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, enjoy a plethora of rule quotes from literally every instance referring to the large oval flying base.

All vehicles occupy the space of their hull. See pg 56 BGB under 'Vehicles & Measuring Distances":

"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from the hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

That specifically says that measuring to the base cannot be used when dealing with vehicles. For dealing with skimmers specifically, cast your gaze upon pg 71 BGB under "Measuring Distances":

"Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have a transparent 'flying base' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exception being the vehicle's weapons, access points, and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base, or both."

Again, all measurements, except assaulting, are put to the hull. The FAQ's do have a couple exceptions:

Imperial Guard FAQ
"Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base."

Follow all previous rules, except models may now disembark/embark from the base and the base is used to measure for contesting objectives.

Main Rule Book FAQ

"Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself."

For taking terrain tests/landing on other models, the base is used to determine if the model is in difficult/dangerous/impassable terrain or on another model.

"Q: Are a vehicle’s wings considered to be part of its
hull? (p60)
A: Yes."

Wings are hull, thus are shootable and, if hanging over the edge of the board, destroy the skimmer.

Q: If a skimmer on a large oval flying base is wrecked,
and its base is completely surrounded by enemy
models, are all embarked models killed? (p71)
A: Yes."

The base is used for emergency disembarking when wrecked.

"Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
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!"

You cannot move off the table in any fashion. Since all distances to vehicles, except where noted above, are measured to the hull, moving hull off the table counts as moving the vehicle off the table.

If you don't care to read all that, here is the reader's digest version:

Measure all distances to skimmers on a large oval flying base to the hull with the following exceptions:

1)Contesting an OBJ is measured to the base
2)Disembarking/embarking is measured to the base
3)Assaulting can be measured to the base or the hull, which ever the model can contact.
4)Whether or not the model is in difficult/dangerous/impassable terrain is determined by base placement.
5)Shooting from the skimmer is done from weapon mounts
6)Emergency disembarking is measured to the base

FYI, nowhere does it say that the area off the table is impassable terrain; we are simply told that we cannot be there. This matters because skimmers can land on IT if they pass a DT test. Since it is not classified as a type of terrain and we only have the blanket statement "You cannot be there", we cannot have anything there, even if the base of the model is completely on the table.

So, in that long list of 6 exceptions to measuring to the hull on skimmers on a large oval flying base, is there any one that says 'table edge' in it? If not, you are not allowed to use the base for that measurement.

-cgmckenzie

BTW, stop calling them 'flyers'. There is no such vehicle classification; they are merely skimmers on a large oval flying base. I have made that mistake myself out of laziness in the past but that is wrong. Stop doing it.

JBW wrote:
How am I supposed to ignore the base? From Assaulting, Deploying, Contesting, or even placement in terrain

Correct so far.

JBW wrote: or even better and the solution to this what portion of the table it occupies, and what portion in volume essentially it occupies vertically.

What page number is this outlined on, so I can read what you're reading?

JBW wrote: The Flyer type's hull does not occupy the space that the base would be.

Except that the BRB tells you that it does.

JBW wrote: It has a base.

That you are explicitly, unwaveringly, unarguably and indismissibly, told to ignore.

JBW wrote:Can a DE Raider move so that its hull would be over a model? No. Can a 'Flyer'? Yes. You just said that a skimmer's hull occupies where the base would be. But this doesn't apply to 'Flyer' types. You can have models under the hull of the Flyer. So your point is mute. It's the base that determines when and where it is on the table. And just like every other model where it comes in contact with other models allows an effect or action occur.

Okay. Say, while you're at it, what page of the rulebook are Flyers on? I just want to read up on them, since mine seems to be missing that heading.

JBW wrote: but I'm actively engaging it and attempting to resolve it.

No, you're not. You're repeating what you believe to be correct and making up rules to back it up. In the paragraph above, you said, "But this doesn't apply to 'Flyer' types." That is completely made up. There are no 'Flyer' types in standard 40K. The Stormraven is not a 'flyer' - it is a (Fast, Skimmer). The Valkyrie is not a 'flyer' - it is a (Fast, Skimmer). We can't "actively engage and try to resolve" when you're referencing rules that do not exist and ignoring rules that do.




Jeff, I'm not trying to take jabs - I'm frustrated with the conversation because you're not even acknowledging the rules that people are presenting. No one is twisting rules or pulling rules out of thin air. The rules themselves say that you ignore the base, but in all of your examples, you're not ignoring the base. I understand that you don't agree with the way it is written, but the RAW is that you ignore it. But to simply ignore this rule means we can't have a mature, constructive conversation.

Let's get back on track here, cause Tommy is frustrated, and apparently I'm not producing a mature conversation regarding the skimmer on a large oval flying base. Thanks for dropping in. Should we go back to what part of the model is on/off the table? I'm sorry I thread jacked, but there's already a thread discussing that. Otherwise, calm down, I'll play it however you need me to play it, ok?

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

What I read you saying is this.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move over the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

That's what I'm discussing here, and unless you can show me how I've broken some rule, then I have completely moved onto the board with what was provided to me via GW.

I hope that helps everyone. Because no one has addressed my rules quote. I've spent the last 5 pages addressing every tiny blurp ill interpreted rules mention. And I still have no conclusion why people think that the skimmer on a large oval flying base would be destroyed. Now why don't you address this and stop attempting to derail the point.

You be better to stick with I must deploy in my deployment zone argument.

JBW wrote:Thanks for dropping in.

Have you missed all my posts over the past couple of pages?

JBW wrote:Let's get back on track here, cause Tommy is frustrated, and apparently I'm not producing a mature conversation regarding the skimmer on a large oval flying base. Should we go back to what part of the model is on/off the table? I'm sorry I thread jacked, but there's already a thread discussing that. Otherwise, calm down, I'll play it however you need me to play it, ok?

I'm calm. Frustrated =/= hostile. Anyone that I've pointed this out to has gladly moved their Valkyrie's onto the board 12". The reason they don't fight about it, is because they understand that it is the correct way to play the game.

JBW wrote:

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

What I read you saying is this.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move over the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

That's what I'm discussing here, and unless you can show me how I've broken some rule, then I have completely moved onto the board with what was provided to me via GW.

And the crux of your entire problem. There are no dimensions in 40K. There were in 4th Edition. They removed them with the advent of 5th Edition. Since there are no dimensions, then a Valkyrie 50 feet in the air is in the same place as one that is sitting on the ground. They occupy the same space, no matter what physics tells you. The reason they do is because the rules say that they do.

JBW wrote:And I still have no conclusion why people think that the skimmer on a large oval flying base would be destroyed.

Okay. It's taken 5 pages, so I don't think explaining it again is going to help. Nevetheless: A skimmer is a vehicle that occupys the space it's hull takes up, just like a land raider. The reason for this is because the rules tell you to ignore the base except for a handful of situations. You are never, ever, ever, ever, ever given permission to measure movement from the base. So, if you cannot measure movement from the base (because you're told to ignore it, and you're not told that you can not ignore it for movement), then you must measure from the hull. If you measure from the hull and find that you do not have enough movement to get the vehicle "onto" the table (referring back to the fact that skimmer is 2D and it takes up the space that it's hull occupies), then the skimmer is destroyed because part of its hull (the space that it takes up) is overlapping the board edge.

JBW wrote:Now why don't you address this and stop attempting to derail the point.

Honestly, I've been trying. I've hardly "derailed" the thread. I am simply repeating what 10 or so other posters are repeating. There's 1 person out of everyone in this thread that doesn't get it and everyone is trying to explain it to you - that is not "derailing". Something that might "derail" the conversation would be making up Unit Types to fit your explanation of the way the game works. However, it sounds like you have come to terms with the fact that they are not 'flyers', but 'skimmers'. As such, they follow the skimmer rules in the 40K rulebook.

JBW wrote:You be better to stick with I must deploy in my deployment zone argument.

I would need to "stick to" an argument if I thought any of the arguments were unfounded or weak. You've yet to prove your point without dodging rules that we've brought up (which is what is frustrating) - that is the sign of a weak or failing argument.





I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just jerking my chain here.

puma713 wrote:And the crux of your entire problem. There are no dimensions in 40K. There were in 4th Edition. They removed them with the advent of 5th Edition. Since there are no dimensions, then a Valkyrie 50 feet in the air is in the same place as one that is sitting on the ground. They occupy the same space, no matter what physics tells you. The reason they do is because the rules say that they do.

Ah, now this is something noone has brought up. I honestly do not understand what you mean by no dimensions. Please explain further. Models have height, width, and length, and they all come into play from LOS to assaulting something to area of effect. A picture would serve this purpose well. I'll try to explain though. Say that tall masculine Daemon Prince is going to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base, and one of his feet is out further than the any other part of the model over the base. If said Daemon Prince were to attempt to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base then he'd have to either come in contact with the skimmer on a large oval flying base's hull or his base would have to touch the skimmer on a large oval flying base's base. What I think you are suggesting is that the on an end of the skimmer on a large oval flying base where the wing extends out past the base, the Daemon Prince would be able to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base if said foot would make contact with the wing of the skimmer on a large oval flying base if it were on the ground. This is not true, as contact does inherently mean to touch.

Also if the hull of the skimmer on a large oval flying base did define some cylinder type in which you actually counted the hull as if it touched the ground you'd be breaking all sorts of 40k 'physics' (<-it's quoted folks so don't get all excited about real world debates).

Are you suggesting that the base is only to hold the model in a vertical fashion and has no bearing on game play? If so, why would they bother to elevate it? I'm truely interested in this thinking, and have no idea what it is based on.

Okay. It's taken 5 pages, so I don't think explaining it again is going to help. Nevetheless: A skimmer is a vehicle that occupys the space it's hull takes up, just like a land raider. The reason for this is because the rules tell you to ignore the base except for a handful of situations. You are never, ever, ever, ever, ever given permission to measure movement from the base. So, if you cannot measure movement from the base (because you're told to ignore it, and you're not told that you can not ignore it for movement), then you must measure from the hull. If you measure from the hull and find that you do not have enough movement to get the vehicle "onto" the table (referring back to the fact that skimmer is 2D and it takes up the space that it's hull occupies), then the skimmer is destroyed because part of its hull (the space that it takes up) is overlapping the board edge.

Oh gosh, you said it. 2D. Oh no, it's not 2D! Good god, we should have started with that. Explain LOS and hills and how a hill can block via elevation, and partial LOS due to obstructions. I just don't know where to begin.

Honestly, I've been trying. I've hardly "derailed" the thread. I am simply repeating what 10 or so other posters are repeating. There's 1 person out of everyone in this thread that doesn't get it and everyone is trying to explain it to you - that is not "derailing". Something that might "derail" the conversation would be making up Unit Types to fit your explanation of the way the game works. However, it sounds like you have come to terms with the fact that they are not 'flyers', but 'skimmers'. As such, they follow the skimmer rules in the 40K rulebook.

How nice of you to realize that I knew from the beginning and numerous times have referenced the 'Flyer' in quotes and even defined it. It's a specific type of skimmer, and for typing purposes I truncated it with the word Flyer not the unit type. You can try to discuss mature conversations and staying on topic but I sure use initialisms and acronyms just like everyone else, and I don't debate that there's no such thing as a MRB or IC or NOVA. Come on people, . Really, do you honestly think that I was attempting to make a unit type that clearly is not in the MRB? Let it go. It's not some sort of mental block by calling it a Flyer either. The skimmer on a large oval flying base obviously has plenty of exceptions to simply denote it as a word equivalent. What do you want to call it, I don't care but if you think people will be confused with Flyer, then they will be confused if you call it a Skimmer with lots of exceptions. I've never debated that the MRB says that skimmers ignore the base when measuring distances. If I have point it out and I will promptly correct the error. Every mention that I have used any type of measurement is from the hull, with all of the exceptions of course. That conversation led down the measuring from the edge to the back of the hull, and where that was required via MRB. That is where and why the base topic came into play. I'll rehash it again, I will. Especially with you T. simply because while all these folks on here are players, they are not in our local group. I don't intend to convince every member on Dakka, and I'm glad I don't have to. But if you'd like I'll cover it again.

I would need to "stick to" an argument if I thought any of the arguments were unfounded or weak. You've yet to prove your point without dodging rules that we've brought up (which is what is frustrating) - that is the sign of a weak or failing argument.

If you are going to respond to a precise rules quote and explanation with 40k is 2D, then I've obviously proved my point and am done.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just jerking my chain here.

I'll play it however my opponent feels it necessary that they don't feel so disadvantaged that it ruins their enjoyment of the game. But to declare my comments unfounded and unreferenced is simply a lie. They might be misinformed, or misunderstood, but even you know, that I know the MRB better than most, so stop with the unnecessary attempts at writing me off as a brick wall. It's insulting to attack my integrity and I expect more from your contribution. We should meet and I'll bring a Stormraven and maybe we can hash it out that way, but maturely, and like buddies.

JBW wrote:

puma713 wrote:And the crux of your entire problem. There are no dimensions in 40K. There were in 4th Edition. They removed them with the advent of 5th Edition. Since there are no dimensions, then a Valkyrie 50 feet in the air is in the same place as one that is sitting on the ground. They occupy the same space, no matter what physics tells you. The reason they do is because the rules say that they do.

Ah, now this is something noone has brought up. I honestly do not understand what you mean by no dimensions. Please explain further. Models have height, width, and length,

Hmm, how to put this. It may be best to explain on an actual battlefield. There are no "levels" of height. Because a skimmer is 10 feet in the air, it doesn't simply and only occupy that space (that is what I meant by 2D - not that 40K is like Super Mario Brothers). You might think of it as a perforated line that stretches from the outline of the skimmer all the way to the ground. The dimensions of width and length are there - but the dimension of height is not relative. Just because something is 10 feet in the air, doesn't mean it actually "is" 10 feet in the air. It could be floating 3 feet above the air, it could be 20 feet above the air in the clouds, it could be on the ground. Point is, all we have is one defintion of height for certain models and we're stuck in the mentality that that is the only space they occupy. Now, it gets trickier when GW FAQs the ability of other units to move "through" the space that the skimmer occupies. But, it's their game - they can do what they want. If they had said that models may not move through these spaces, then this debate would be much clearer, I think. These caveats do not extend to measurement, movement and other defintions dealing with the hull and dimensions of a vehicle, however.

JBW wrote:Say that tall masculine Daemon Prince is going to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base, and one of his feet is out further than the any other part of the model over the base. If said Daemon Prince were to attempt to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base then he'd have to either come in contact with the skimmer on a large oval flying base's hull or his base would have to touch the skimmer on a large oval flying base's base. What I think you are suggesting is that the on an end of the skimmer on a large oval flying base where the wing extends out past the base, the Daemon Prince would be able to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base if said foot would make contact with the wing of the skimmer on a large oval flying base if it were on the ground. This is not true, as contact does inherently mean to touch.

I think it is muddying the waters to add hypothetical situations that couldn't occur. If we want to make hypotheticals, then what about a Defiler? It has no base. What if you had a 7 foot tall Defiler - could it not assault the wing of the Valkyrie? It is simply "making contact". Imaginary situations are a bit tricky and should be left out, I think.

JBW wrote:Also if the hull of the skimmer on a large oval flying base did define some cylinder type in which you actually counted the hull as if it touched the ground you'd be breaking all sorts of 40k 'physics'

Like what? Not being confrontational - I'm curious about what that would break (outside of what has been FAQed). If the skimmer is immobilised, you must move models out of the way if you plan to land it, do you not? It is occupying the same space as it was before it became immobilised, except now others cannot move through it. GW has made it tougher to define because they have allowed other models to move through the space that it occupies. It is a caveat to the rules - it is not changing how skimmers work.

JBW wrote:Are you suggesting that the base is only to hold the model in a vertical fashion and has no bearing on game play?

The bearing that it has on gameplay is outlined in the skimmer rules, and then further clarified in the relevant FAQs. So, in short - yes, if you're told to ignore the base, ignore it. It has no bearing, save for whatever the rules tell you.

JBW wrote:If so, why would they bother to elevate it? I'm truely interested in this thinking, and have no idea what it is based on.

I have no idea why they wanted to elevate it. Maybe because it is a huge model and they thought that on a 4 X 6 board, it would be tough to model them close to the ground. Maybe they are planning to add 'flyer' rules to 6th edition and it is simply in preparation for that. I don't know. All I know is what rules govern that particular model.

JBW wrote:

puma713 wrote:Okay. It's taken 5 pages, so I don't think explaining it again is going to help. Nevetheless: A skimmer is a vehicle that occupys the space it's hull takes up, just like a land raider. The reason for this is because the rules tell you to ignore the base except for a handful of situations. You are never, ever, ever, ever, ever given permission to measure movement from the base. So, if you cannot measure movement from the base (because you're told to ignore it, and you're not told that you can not ignore it for movement), then you must measure from the hull. If you measure from the hull and find that you do not have enough movement to get the vehicle "onto" the table (referring back to the fact that skimmer is 2D and it takes up the space that it's hull occupies), then the skimmer is destroyed because part of its hull (the space that it takes up) is overlapping the board edge.

Oh gosh, you said it. 2D. Oh no, it's not 2D! Good god, we should have started with that. Explain LOS and hills and how a hill can block via elevation, and partial LOS due to obstructions. I just don't know where to begin.

See my above explanation of why I said 2D. A hill can block a 2D interpretation. You can also draw LOS through a 2D interpretation. Cut out a picture of a Space Marine, then put a 2D bush in front of him and you have LOS-blocking terrain. Think of it like Vassal (have you ever seen/played Vassal?) - it is a 2D interpretation of 40K. You can imagine the Valkyrie as high up as you want, but it still occupies the space that its hull takes up.

JBW wrote:I don't debate that there's no such thing as a MRB or IC or NOVA.

Or the INAT, which rules in favor of completely being on the board, no overlapping.

JBW wrote:That is where and why the base topic came into play. I'll rehash it again, I will. Especially with you T. simply because while all these folks on here are players, they are not in our local group. I don't intend to convince every member on Dakka, and I'm glad I don't have to. But if you'd like I'll cover it again.

No thanks. This conversation is going in circles and is getting a little tired. If we have to play each other, and one of us is playing one of these skimmers, then we'll just discuss it then.

As it stands, I (discounting FAQs, other people on Dakka and even other people in our local gaming scene) feel that you may not overlap a skimmer's hull over any edge of the board any more than you can overlap a terminator's base or the hull of a land raider. To do so is breaking the rules and, in reserve situations, constitutes an advantage. I will not do it with my own skimmers, unless GW comes out with a FAQ stating it clearly that you can, or until 6th Edition comes out and potentially clears it up. In most tournaments I play in (90%), the INAT is used, so it is not an issue. In the few times that it is ever an issue, I will discuss the point-of-view with my opponent and if they are so stalwart about moving 6" on from reserves and firing all their weapons, I will call a judge.

JBW, look at my previous post. It has every rule regarding skimmers and the large oval flying base(LOFB if you want an abbreviation). It includes the ENTIRE list of exceptions to measuring from the hull, and movement is not one of them. Nor is checking to see if it is on the board.

There is no need to be digging around through mountains of books, FAQ's, and codexes to find them, because I already quoted them for you. Read them, love them, and then tell us where it says where you can do what you are saying is possible.

I'll wait.

-cgmckenzie

EDIT: BTW, the reason the Valk/vendetta/SR is on the LOFB is to provide a bigger target. They are such powerful models that the base is used as a balancing measure to make getting cover harder.

CGM -its not worth it. This is someone who, no matter how many times you prove their error, will still not see it.

There have been no rules arguments from JBW since the start, and they ignore rules that are posted that prove their interpretation is incorrect.

MODELS IN THE WAY
A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases this is only possible in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.

You IMHO are thoroughly confused about what this means. The space occupied is one or the other; the hull or base. For most models it's the base that you typically come in contact with. But for vehicles, it's the hull. The hull's 3D or even 2D perspective has no imaginary lines marking it on the board. Skimmers are typically low to the ground and thus models more frequently come in contact with it's hull, because that's the space it occupies. You can't move under the typical skimmer because you simply cannot move into or through it. You could have put a low flying skimmer on a plateau with a portion of it's hull over the edge and have a model underneath it on the bottom of the plateau and not have erred, as the hull is the space it occupies, and the model under the skimmer is not challenging the defined occupied space.

This doesn't change for the StormRaven (SR). The hull of the SR is what defines the space it occupies. Not imaginary lines, which are mentioned no where in the rules. The reference that you cannot put a model on top of friendly or enemy models is simply restating in the Skimmer section what was already mentioned in the Model section of the MRB. If you set it down and it is on top of other models then you are doing something wrong.

MOVING SKIMMERS
Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

Somewhere along the lines people start thinking that if something above or over meant 'on top of'. And it just so happens that they released a model that does just that; it moves over models. You seem to see the FAQs as all exceptions, and they are all not. Most are reinforcements of rules and GW even goes to clarify

Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on friendly or enemy models? (p71) A: Just the base itself.

Notice how it says 'on' not 'over'.

If what you are suggesting is true regarding the 2D paradigm, then I'd have to agree with you. But it's not. I'll take it one step further and ask how do you measure to determine whether a weapon is in range? I'd imagine that you do it just as everyone else does, and measure from the model to the hull, as that is clearly what we measure distances to and from. That alone defines height, as the weapon will lose range at an angle.

When you’re checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Where does it say horizontally only? If you are measuring from above the model as if it were on the same plane/height, then you are extending your range of fire, thus cheating.

simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model

. If you are measuring starting anywhere else than from the model then you are cheating/shorting the distance between the models. I'm curious how many other people play this way, and why. Now back to the occupation of a model. So I state it again there are serious game play questions here, and maybe this is the mature conversation you were waiting on.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

What I read you saying is this.
"Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move over the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play."


On a side note...

BA.38A.04 – Q: Can a Stormraven end its movement with part of the model hanging off the table as long as its base is fully on the table? A: No, the Stormraven must end its movement with the entire model over the table [clarification]. Note that this may mean it has to move faster than ‘combat speed’ when moving onto the table from Reserves.

Luckily we typically play by INAT locally so that settles that until they do as we both have mentioned; FAQ or Revision. Why hasn't someone mentioned its in the INAT by now....I don't remember seeing this previously.

I didn't like the Deffrolla ruling via INAT and I don't like this one either, but it's in there and that's what we use.

The hypothetical actually, at least in my eyes, defined what you refer to the 2D invisible lines. The Defiler is actually referenced in the MRB, you assault the legs, clear as day.

MEASURING RANGES
If a walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as you would for an infantry model. If a walker does not have a base (like the Chaos Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including its legs and other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Firing the walker's own weapons is an exception to this, as explained later on this page.

cgmckenzie wrote:JBW, look at my previous post. It has every rule regarding skimmers and the large oval flying base(LOFB if you want an abbreviation). It includes the ENTIRE list of exceptions to measuring from the hull, and movement is not one of them. Nor is checking to see if it is on the board.

There is no need to be digging around through mountains of books, FAQ's, and codexes to find them, because I already quoted them for you. Read them, love them, and then tell us where it says where you can do what you are saying is possible.

I'll wait.

-cgmckenzie

EDIT: BTW, the reason the Valk/vendetta/SR is on the LOFB is to provide a bigger target. They are such powerful models that the base is used as a balancing measure to make getting cover harder.

Thanks, but I've covered that already and you are (fortunately) not the first to post references, I've been doing it from the start, check them out. Arrogance and sarcasms work best with the ork smileys . But hey, let's entertain the masses.

True maybe they put them up there because they are so powerful. But it could be that they are flying space craft with engines and maybe transport other models!

JBW, you have no rules backing you up. Plain and simple, you are wrong. Period. To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, enjoy a plethora of rule quotes from literally every instance referring to the large oval flying base.

You're regurgitating the very most what Eldanar just posted, and his was much cleaner and concise. I've read them.

"Q: Are a vehicle’s wings considered to be part of its hull? (p60) A: Yes."
Wings are hull, thus are shootable and, if hanging over the edge of the board, destroy the skimmer.

That's a leap from what's a hull to destroyed. But I do get your point, if the model is destroyed via its hull hanging over the edge, I would agree that the wings hanging over the edge would also mean 'fireworks' <-

"Q: Can models move off the table? (p11) 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!"

You cannot move off the table in any fashion. Since all distances to vehicles, except where noted above, are measured to the hull, moving hull off the table counts as moving the vehicle off the table.

See now, if you really had read some of those pages before now, you could have quoted me discussing this very topic. But since you haven't and continuously claim that I have never referenced a rule, here we go again... This is a debate about what is on/off the table. Not discussing it here simply because it has it's own thread elsewhere and I've already established that if the model is still on the table when I let go, then it is not off. If I let go and it falls, then it would be off the table. The models is on the board via the only possible sane way and that is through contact between the base and the board. But just so you know, I will not discuss this further, and if you want to make this a point onto which you claim that I'm stubborn for doing so then thanks for your comments. The topic here is whether or not the model can be hanging over the edge. I realized that Puma started this with a simple goal in mind to declare on/off, but I jumped in and established what the core discussion was/is about. I assume that Puma would also agree that on/off is not what is in question, but rather the ability to 'move completely onto' the board.

If you don't care to read all that, here is the reader's digest version:
Measure all distances to skimmers on a large oval flying base to the hull with the following exceptions:

1)Contesting an OBJ is measured to the base
2)Disembarking/embarking is measured to the base
3)Assaulting can be measured to the base or the hull, which ever the model can contact.
4)Whether or not the model is in difficult/dangerous/impassable terrain is determined by base placement.
5)Shooting from the skimmer is done from weapon mounts
6)Emergency disembarking is measured to the base

FYI, nowhere does it say that the area off the table is impassable terrain; we are simply told that we cannot be there. This matters because skimmers can land on IT if they pass a DT test. Since it is not classified as a type of terrain and we only have the blanket statement "You cannot be there", we cannot have anything there, even if the base of the model is completely on the table.

So, in that long list of 6 exceptions to measuring to the hull on skimmers on a large oval flying base, is there any one that says 'table edge' in it? If not, you are not allowed to use the base for that measurement.

-cgmckenzie

BTW, stop calling them 'flyers'. There is no such vehicle classification; they are merely skimmers on a large oval flying base. I have made that mistake myself out of laziness in the past but that is wrong. Stop doing it.

So where did I call the void past the table edge impassible terrain? I didn't ever. Once again if you would reference the previous discussions you'd know that the table edge mention came from the moving onto the board from reserve. So I'll catch you up to speed, cause I do want your input (minus sarcasms).

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94) A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

Now before you get too excited about that little bit of gold there, go back a couple posts and glance over the discussions so as to not repeat ourselves too many more times. I'm actually quite interested int the 2D paradigm as that alone would solve everything and make sense of what you folks are talking about.

You'll have to read a previous post again, but I gave a bit of a rant about the word Flyer. And you should notice that the way GW references it is quite wordy so I'll use LOFB or Flyer as they are intended to be one and the same, and mine is much easier to say.

Something about this thread is beginning to smell very troll-y?

Scarabs, for example, fit under most regularly-based skimmer tanks perfectly well.
A battlewagon deff rolla halfway off the table can easily be "on the table" without falling off by your imaginary definition.
But it doesn't really matter how many of your arguments we nullify, as you are ignoring any argument, reason and rules anyway. Ignoring cgmckenzies's posts really does make you look like a troll.

And just FYI, INAT is not an offical rules document for the purpose of discussing on YMDC.

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

JBW according to the thread you posted this quote in it's from GW's site about the Throne of Skulls tournament, correct? (I'm unfamiliar with the tournament so have no real idea what it is).

If that's the case, GW acknowledges that, normally, a Valkyrie/vendetta cannot have its tail hung over the edge of the table. This being for a specific tournament, it's a specific ruling that any tournament can make (a tournament organizer COULD say that all space marines are armed with dual pulse lasers and follow the rules for monstrous creatures at no additional cost if they want to). So for a regular 40k game without extra exceptions to the core rules, you cannot have the tail of a valk hanging over the table edge (otherwise, the above quote would NOT be "an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed").

Don't quote tourney rules, be they GW or otherwise. The people writing these rules are not the design team for GW and it has no bearing on the rest of gameplay. A TO can change the rules of the game how he sees fit but it still only applies to that specific event or other events that decide to use that FAQ.

JBW, you don't cover any of our points or your points with rules. You say how you think it is played, then keep telling us that we are wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And to say that I haven't read the entire thread is ludicrous, I have been posting the entire time, providing more official rules and FAQ posts(literally all that apply) than you have(read:zero).

The bit about the edge of the world not being impassable terrain was there, and I am directly quoting myself here, to 'This matters because skimmers can land on IT if they pass a DT test. Since it is not classified as a type of terrain and we only have the blanket statement "You cannot be there", we cannot have anything there, even if the base of the model is completely on the table. ' You can count the base for terrain tests, but that still brings up the issue of being where we are explicitly told we cannot be.

And as far as me regurgitating what other people are saying, it because we are right. There is nothing new under the sun. All rules come from 1 of 3 sources(BGB, White Dwarf, or FAQ's) so you should expect to hear the truth repeatedly if you continue to refuse to recognize it.

I am with augustus on this one. You're a troll.

-cgmckenzie

Don't quote tourney rules, be they GW or otherwise. The people writing these rules are not the design team for GW and it has no bearing on the rest of gameplay.

The purpose wasn't to use the tourny rule as a precedent or as an answer, but to show that those who wrote the rule acknowledge that allowing a Valkyrie to hang its tail off the edge is normally not allowed. I know that TOs can use whatever rules they please and I pointed that out.

That comment was directly squarely at JBW. He was quoting it as the truth and rules while you were using it as an example.

I just really didn't feel like quoting that massive post of his.

-cgmckenzie

Jidmah wrote:Scarabs, for example, fit under most regularly-based skimmer tanks perfectly well.
A battlewagon deff rolla halfway off the table can easily be "on the table" without falling off by your imaginary definition.
But it doesn't really matter how many of your arguments we nullify, as you are ignoring any argument, reason and rules anyway. Ignoring cgmckenzies's posts really does make you look like a troll.

And just FYI, INAT is not an offical rules document for the purpose of discussing on YMDC.

I'm not sure I know who you are addressing. I think you might be addressing me, so I'll respond. A BW Deffrolla, the wargear is not part of the hull so obviously it can be hanging over the edge. And I didn't create this imaginary anything... that was Puma's post. What arguments have we nulified? What have I not addressed? Are my posts being cut off? I try to minimize the length of the posts and only respond to things I disagree with. I don't need to always repeat the clearly state rules that CG posted. Thanks for the FYI but I haven't been using INAT for official rules. Again, what are you reading? Our local group has unofficially accepted the INAT as a second source of ruling if the players decide to use it.

There's nothing wrong with a Scarab being under a hull so long as it stay outside the 1" rule. It says that here.

MODELS IN THE WAY
A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases this is only possible in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ail-Shan wrote:

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

JBW according to the thread you posted this quote in it's from GW's site about the Throne of Skulls tournament, correct? (I'm unfamiliar with the tournament so have no real idea what it is).

If that's the case, GW acknowledges that, normally, a Valkyrie/vendetta cannot have its tail hung over the edge of the table. This being for a specific tournament, it's a specific ruling that any tournament can make (a tournament organizer COULD say that all space marines are armed with dual pulse lasers and follow the rules for monstrous creatures at no additional cost if they want to). So for a regular 40k game without extra exceptions to the core rules, you cannot have the tail of a valk hanging over the table edge (otherwise, the above quote would NOT be "an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed").

Yeah, it's not GW's ruling from my understanding, and from what another post mentioned that this was the TO's take and his interpretation, not GW's. Yeah it's silly that they would take that position as an exception, I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:Don't quote tourney rules, be they GW or otherwise. The people writing these rules are not the design team for GW and it has no bearing on the rest of gameplay. A TO can change the rules of the game how he sees fit but it still only applies to that specific event or other events that decide to use that FAQ.

JBW, you don't cover any of our points or your points with rules. You say how you think it is played, then keep telling us that we are wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And to say that I haven't read the entire thread is ludicrous, I have been posting the entire time, providing more official rules and FAQ posts(literally all that apply) than you have(read:zero).

The bit about the edge of the world not being impassable terrain was there, and I am directly quoting myself here, to 'This matters because skimmers can land on IT if they pass a DT test. Since it is not classified as a type of terrain and we only have the blanket statement "You cannot be there", we cannot have anything there, even if the base of the model is completely on the table. ' You can count the base for terrain tests, but that still brings up the issue of being where we are explicitly told we cannot be.

And as far as me regurgitating what other people are saying, it because we are right. There is nothing new under the sun. All rules come from 1 of 3 sources(BGB, White Dwarf, or FAQ's) so you should expect to hear the truth repeatedly if you continue to refuse to recognize it.

I am with augustus on this one. You're a troll.
-cgmckenzie

I agree with you regarding TOs and tournaments. What are you referring to? I thought I have already agreed with persons bringing this up. I use this as a reference that another commonly used supplement (if I can call it that) has ruled for 2D in determining whether the model is on the board.

I'll take some time to go over your posts and see where I have left you out. If I have, it was not intended, or unintentional. I'm an Ork, not a troll. The increasing perceived emotional commitment has been a burden, I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CG, would it be easier for me to go through them again or can we all just walk away from this? This is a non sarcastic serious question.

Go through them as many times as you want, you have no support for your argument. Come back with RULES supporting your claim that you can have hull past the edge of the board.

-cgmckenzie

JBW if you show us the page with the allowance for having a vehicle's hull past the edge of the board, then we can debate some more.

If you can not, then this discussion seems to have been resolved.

I'm amazed that this thread is 6 pages of an attempt to prove what is common sense to someone who obviously wants to exploit what he thinks is a loophole in the rules to his benefit. If he isn't convinced by now, he never will be. The simple solution is to play with someone else.