Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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


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

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

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

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

Assuming the LR model is over 6" long:

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

RaW, well there are no RaW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I went with his interpretation but thanks anyway

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

Yes, based on the description given.

Did the extra distance make a game difference?

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

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


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

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

RAW: grey area or clear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you wish to disagree you must provide rules.

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rules literally state you must move ON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it On or Off the Table?

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

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

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

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

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