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.

Or even "is"

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Now now, be nice. No name calling.

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

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

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

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

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

Do you know how hard it is to unsmirch honor?

Nos: Pics or GTFO.

Ah sorry, didnt realise this was your thread.

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

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

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

EDIT: BRB Smokes

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

The closest you got was below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




EDIT- So yes he can fire all weapons.



-Orkishly

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

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



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


-Orkishly

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And on that funfilled note this thread is closed.

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