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.

The simple phrase: move ONTO the table.

Not FULLY onto, as you are asserting, but ONTO.

As long as I have moved ONTO, even PARTIALLY ONTO, I have fulfilled the requirements of the rule. As such I have entered play.

In addition I have no idea why you are harking on about deployment; oddly enough this has absolutely 100% nothing to do with moving on from reserves. If you are going down this line, then you are summarily deciding that Outflankers that arrive, say, in their opponents half / quarter are not "on" the table. Which is just hilariously wrong.

DeathReaper wrote:

Ordo Dakka wrote:I can't believe he is arguing against the venn diagram. That is about as simple as he can make it, the model is ON THE TABLE. Even if it is only partially.

EDIT- double psot

The deployment rules give us our basis for what is in play and what is not in play. P92/93.

Since you have to deploy in your half/quarter of the table this disallows you from deploying partially on and partially off the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

No, try that again. You are trying to claim that, because it does NOT state "fully" on, it still actuall means that "by default"?

Sorry, that isnt how English, nor these rules written in English, works.

You are allowed to move partially ON because the rule only requires you to move ON. If you move partially ON you are still, actually, ON the table. Not sure how to explain this any more simply to you.

If you wish to debat e further, please find a page number that defines that "onto" actually means, by default "fully onto". Anything?

if you move partially on, you are on and off the table.

You have to be on the gameboard to play the game, this disallows you from moving partially on the board. See page 88 'The gaming surface'

This gives you the allowed area to play the game, anything outside this surface is not in play.

now please give me your page #'s that over-ride these.

Edited for spelling.

This is the sort of argumentation I dislike. It's not constructive and it's going around in circles. Regardless:

I'll avoid being passive-aggressive about this... which tragically means the TLDR won't happen.

Page 92/93: This page deals with mission selection and secrecy. It does not define what is in play or what is not in play unless you have a clearly pre-defined rule which is not existent on this page. It has a fairly large portion taken up by fluff and diagrams.
Interestingly enough, none of these two pages says anything about that you have to place your models on the gaming board. However, it should be noted that the rules expressly do not cover anything off the table so deploying units is implicit by the rules as being strictly on the table. Deployment is not what we're discussing, though, and as such has absolutely no bearing on the argument.

Partially on = on and off the table: No. Partially on means you are on the table. Being off the table is strictly a situation where you can not be said to be on the table in any shape or form. These are definitions within the English language. You can't be on and off something at the same time, but you can be partially on and partially off.

Page 88: This page deals with how the gaming surface is defined and how terrain is placed on the table. A very crucial page for this discussion, but it does not deal with models at all.

The logical conclusion of page 88: This logical conclusion is erroneous, but it is one I'll admit is easy to make. The definition of being in play is not given by the gaming surface, it is entirely possible that a unit have powers which do work when they are in reserves (i.e. not in play) and such powers actually do exist so it's not a hypothetical argument. A model being in play is simply when you've been given permission to handle it under the rules stated in the BRB. For simplicity's sake I'll simply summarize this as a) being in play is not defined as a concept as far as I've been able to find and b) generally speaking being in play is when you've been allowed to place your model on the table.

Request for over-rides: As I've detailed, the pages cited do not contain rules to support your arguments.

---

I will say this much, however: I'm not entirely sure the game doesn't break in a minor way if you move a model that's not fully on the table. Right now I'm simply too tired to research this.

Mahtamori wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Ordo Dakka wrote:I can't believe he is arguing against the venn diagram. That is about as simple as he can make it, the model is ON THE TABLE. Even if it is only partially.

EDIT- double psot

The deployment rules give us our basis for what is in play and what is not in play. P92/93.

Since you have to deploy in your half/quarter of the table this disallows you from deploying partially on and partially off the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

The rules state you have to move onto the table. Since it does not state partially on, by default, you have to move fully onto the table.

You are not allowed to move partially onto the table.(if you are allowed to move Partially onto the table please give me a page # that says this)

No, try that again. You are trying to claim that, because it does NOT state "fully" on, it still actuall means that "by default"?

Sorry, that isnt how English, nor these rules written in English, works.

You are allowed to move partially ON because the rule only requires you to move ON. If you move partially ON you are still, actually, ON the table. Not sure how to explain this any more simply to you.

If you wish to debat e further, please find a page number that defines that "onto" actually means, by default "fully onto". Anything?

if you move partially on, you are on and off the table.

You have to be on the gameboard to play the game, this disallows you from moving partially on the board. See page 88 'The gaming surface'

This gives you the allowed area to play the game, anything outside this surface is not in play.

now please give me your page #'s that over-ride these.

Edited for spelling.

This is the sort of argumentation I dislike. It's not constructive and it's going around in circles. Regardless:

I'll avoid being passive-aggressive about this... which tragically means the TLDR won't happen.

Page 92/93: This page deals with mission selection and secrecy. It does not define what is in play or what is not in play unless you have a clearly pre-defined rule which is not existent on this page. It has a fairly large portion taken up by fluff and diagrams.
Interestingly enough, none of these two pages says anything about that you have to place your models on the gaming board. However, it should be noted that the rules expressly do not cover anything off the table so deploying units is implicit by the rules as being strictly on the table. Deployment is not what we're discussing, though, and as such has absolutely no bearing on the argument.

Partially on = on and off the table: No. Partially on means you are on the table. Being off the table is strictly a situation where you can not be said to be on the table in any shape or form. These are definitions within the English language. You can't be on and off something at the same time, but you can be partially on and partially off.

Page 88: This page deals with how the gaming surface is defined and how terrain is placed on the table. A very crucial page for this discussion, but it does not deal with models at all.

The logical conclusion of page 88: This logical conclusion is erroneous, but it is one I'll admit is easy to make. The definition of being in play is not given by the gaming surface, it is entirely possible that a unit have powers which do work when they are in reserves (i.e. not in play) and such powers actually do exist so it's not a hypothetical argument. A model being in play is simply when you've been given permission to handle it under the rules stated in the BRB. For simplicity's sake I'll simply summarize this as a) being in play is not defined as a concept as far as I've been able to find and b) generally speaking being in play is when you've been allowed to place your model on the table.

Request for over-rides: As I've detailed, the pages cited do not contain rules to support your arguments.

---

I will say this much, however: I'm not entirely sure the game doesn't break in a minor way if you move a model that's not fully on the table. Right now I'm simply too tired to research this.

The only problem with your assertion is that on pg 94 arriving from reseve does make a clear distinction between on and off the board. What I believe DeathReaper is trying to convey to everyone is that the game board is limited, therefore the area models can be on the table is also limited. As is defined on page 88. So partially on is not within the playing surface because it is partially off the table. You all seems to be argueing that on is on, and not thinking that off is (interestingly enough also) off.

Also, a lot of you who seem to be arguing against deathreaper have stated that he cannot ask for a page reference from you because he has no rules backing him up. I would like to point out that under that context you cannot ask for one yourselves as that is hypocritical and to explain that your arguement is right because he can't is redundant. Furthermore, he HAS given you a page that is very specific and relevent to this disscussion, and in doing so has also asked you all to provide a page refference from you about your assertions.

Kapitalist-pig seems to be working it out.

I'd like to throw in the point that if you can be forced to move only partially on the table, than you must be able to voluntarily move partially on the table. The reason being is the argument for being alive though you are only partially on the table is because you are in a sense on the table (as shown by the diagram, assuming that partially on is considered on). So, if that is the case, than you may also move your models to only be partially on the table (why you would I have no idea, but there may be some reason).

it is entirely possible that a unit have powers which do work when they are in reserves (i.e. not in play) and such powers actually do exist so it's not a hypothetical argument.

You claim it's not hypothetical but you provide no examples (all you need is 1 really). So if you'd please provide an example (not really doubting you, but I can't seem to recall any at the moment though I'm fairly sure there are some).

Hive commander, almost ALL replacements for combat tactics, Ghazghulls Waaagh, Logans rule, Autarch reserve buff.

Lots.

Yes, you can move voluntarily partially on - see baneblades arriving from reserve, example given earlier. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be fully on the table after moving on. Land raiders, if you want to be able to fire both lascannons are the same target ahead of you.

KP - arriving from reserve simply requires "onto", not "fully", thus we have had our page ref for 6 pages now. Noone has been able to find anywhere that this "defaults" to "fully" onto, despite Deathreapers assertion on this.

There are a few oddities which can stop a vehicle before it has completed it's move, like death or glory or a ramming move which doesn't wreck/destroy it's target, but difficult terrain isn't one of them:

Page 57, heading 'Terrain effects', second paragraph:
"vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain, they treat difficult as dangerous. Roll a D6 for each vehicle which has left, entered or moved thru one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move"

nosferaty1001 wrote:Yes, you can move voluntarily partially on - see baneblades arriving from reserve, example given earlier. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be fully on the table after moving on. Land raiders, if you want to be able to fire both lascannons are the same target ahead of you.

Technically, if a vehicle is unable to move full on to the table because its maximum movement speed is less than its length, it is not voluntary movement, so this cannot be taken to give permission for voluntary half-on movement.

Conversely, I think it would be possible to move a Land Raider fully on to the table by going at full speed, or by pivoting sideways at the end of the entry move. Clearly this would prevent it from shooting at full effect, however that is just the normal rules in action.

That said, there is no rule compelling vehicles arriving from reserve to move fully on to the table, so equally, we can't say players have to move their Land Raider as I described.

I don't think it matters if a vehicle is partly on the table. Vehicles are not subject to the edge suction effect that infantry suffer during Falling Back. If the front of the vehicle is on the table, it can be seen and shot at, which is important from a practical viewpoint.

This does not solve the original problem, though. The rule is quite clear -- the vehicle stops outside the terrain it was attempting to enter.

Thus, if the difficult terrain extends to the edge of the table, the tank is off the table.

From a practical viewpoint, what terrain is the vehicle in, outside the table? If it is to be allowed to take part in the battle from off the table, then units on the table will wish to shoot at it, and they need to be able to see its cover status so they can manoeuvre for maximum advantage.

Infantry may wish to assault it. Why should the tank be allowed to shoot at the infantry, but the infantry not be allowed to assault the tank?

On balance it seems fairer and more practical that a vehicle, which fails to arrive from reserves, should be eliminated from the game as if it had been destroyed in a Deep Strike calamity.

Page 57, heading 'Terrain effects', second paragraph:
"vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain, they treat difficult as dangerous. Roll a D6 for each vehicle which has left, entered or moved thru one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move"

There you go (I was the opponent btw... ).

If you enter terrain, you have to make the dangerous terrain test immediately. If you are not completely on the board when you enter terrain and get immobilized we have the problem.

Normally of course I avoid this, but this time I had no choice, I wanted firepower there. It was unimportant for the game, we tied safely, but this could have been an interesting tiebreaker in my favour. OK my point on this question is:

This situation is just not covered by the rules. You cannot be partially off the board simply because off the board is impassable terrain and "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

The line referring to special rules does not apply here too, because a dangerous terrain test is not a special rule.

so we have a simple error. You cannot destroy the vehicle, because there is no reason in the rules for it. You cannot place it partially off the board either, because this is not permitted. So we have to houserule this.

But this thing leads me to the next question:

What happens if a reserve edge is blocked and a unit should arrive there? Last game I decided not to close a flank because I wasnt sure how to solve this. Here in germany we houserule this (mostly the unit stays in reserve and tries coming each turn again and if it didnt appear until the end of the game it is destroyed). But I wonder how you guys work this out.

Kilkrazy wrote:Conversely, I think it would be possible to move a Land Raider fully on to the table by going at full speed, or by pivoting sideways at the end of the entry move. Clearly this would prevent it from shooting at full effect, however that is just the normal rules in action.

Er if the land raider pivots it will be flush to the board edge ... So now you have a land raider that can only dive down the side of the board. After all you can not move off the table and pivoting would move the LR off.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hive commander, almost ALL replacements for combat tactics, Ghazghulls Waaagh, Logans rule, Autarch reserve buff.

Lots.

Yes, you can move voluntarily partially on - see baneblades arriving from reserve, example given earlier. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be fully on the table after moving on. Land raiders, if you want to be able to fire both lascannons are the same target ahead of you.

KP - arriving from reserve simply requires "onto", not "fully", thus we have had our page ref for 6 pages now. Noone has been able to find anywhere that this "defaults" to "fully" onto, despite Deathreapers assertion on this.

See below. bold underlined says it all below.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Page 57, heading 'Terrain effects', second paragraph:
"vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain, they treat difficult as dangerous. Roll a D6 for each vehicle which has left, entered or moved thru one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move"

There you go (I was the opponent btw... ).

If you enter terrain, you have to make the dangerous terrain test immediately. If you are not completely on the board when you enter terrain and get immobilized we have the problem.

... OK my point on this question is:

This situation is just not covered by the rules. You cannot be partially off the board simply because off the board is impassable terrain and "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

The line referring to special rules does not apply here too, because a dangerous terrain test is not a special rule.

so we have a simple error. You cannot destroy the vehicle, because there is no reason in the rules for it. You cannot place it partially off the board either, because this is not permitted. So we have to houserule this.

But this thing leads me to the next question:

What happens if a reserve edge is blocked and a unit should arrive there? Last game I decided not to close a flank because I wasnt sure how to solve this. Here in germany we houserule this (mostly the unit stays in reserve and tries coming each turn again and if it didnt appear until the end of the game it is destroyed). But I wonder how you guys work this out.

Not sure how i would play that scenario naz, maybe keeping them in reserve and rolling again next turn is a good option.

Off the edge of the baord is not impassible terrain, otherwise reserves could never come on. They are placed with their front edge at the edge of the board, and then move. If you try to do this you are placing a model in impassable terrain which you do not have permission to do so.

So you're still not right on this.

Tri - nothing states a LR (or any vehicle) cant simply move sideways. This permission is derived from infantry permission to do so, which is never overridden by the vehicle movement rules.

-nazdreg - the rules DO cover this situation: if you can get even 0.000001" onto the table, you are on the table and have satisfied the rules for arriving from reserves. As has been said for 6 pages now, and which D Reaper seems unable to grasp.

I am more and more beginning to think that the line on page 94 "if a unit has a special rule forcing <snip> or that could stop it" should be read in a very broader sense than strictly special rules, but to encompass immobilization results as well.

Kilkrazy, strictly speaking, a vehicle which has arrived from reinforcements is literally touching the board edge so close that the board edge can, at certain points, be treated as the vehicle's hull. Additionally, the rules do not give permission for defining terrain off the gaming surface so the best terrain can cover is in contact with the board edge.
The reasoning with melee is a sound one, however I do not think it actually changes the rules but more so changes how to treat a situation like this practically.

Nostromo, a vehicle which is immobilized as part of it's movement through dangerous terrain is placed in hull-to-start-of-terrain contact.

Kapitalist-pig, it makes a clear distinction between on and off in relation to the board, yet it makes no distinction between partially on or off. Furthermore, page 94, arriving from reserve, states that you may not place your model until you have finished your move as this may otherwise lead to making a move too far, and this is where the distinction between on and off occurs.

A house-rule suggestion (let's call it a "sane-rule"): A model must have fully moved onto the table before effects of difficult or dangerous terrain are applied to the model. Should the model be unable to move fully onto the table as a result of a normal, unhindered, movement, the model is moved the minimum amount of distance extra necessary to get the model fully onto the table. Should a model or unit be unable to enter from reserves due to restrictions from impassable terrain or enemy units, the model or unit is returned to reserves.
If you want to further avoid silly situations where conga-lines of infiltrators prevent a player from entering from reserves, you could add
On a turn following when a unit or model were unable to enter from reserves, the unit or model may arrive through outflanking.
(Although I'm personally of the opinion that a commander that kept his entire force in reserve deserve serious punishment for epic tactical failure)

Edit: Now, could we come to the agreement that the situation where a model is immobilized due to difficult terrain touching the table edge is not covered by the rules and simply add this situation to that pile?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tri - nothing states a LR (or any vehicle) cant simply move sideways. This permission is derived from infantry permission to do so, which is never overridden by the vehicle movement rules.

... on the one hand i agree ... on the other we have sideways moving battle wagons (and all though you can't prove intent they have mentioned forward and backward movement which leads me to the view they can only move forward and backwards)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Off the edge of the baord is not impassible terrain, otherwise reserves could never come on. They are placed with their front edge at the edge of the board, and then move. If you try to do this you are placing a model in impassable terrain which you do not have permission to do so.

So you're still not right on this.

Tri - nothing states a LR (or any vehicle) cant simply move sideways. This permission is derived from infantry permission to do so, which is never overridden by the vehicle movement rules.

-nazdreg - the rules DO cover this situation: if you can get even 0.000001" onto the table, you are on the table and have satisfied the rules for arriving from reserves. As has been said for 6 pages now, and which D Reaper seems unable to grasp.

we can not play outside the game surface, there is a boundary there for a reason. (like most any competitive game/sport)

You are not right on this. the vehicle you mentioned is on the table, AND off the table. Like schrodinger's cat.

Off the board is "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

bottom line for the OP is that if a vehicle is immobilized off the board it is out of play.

You know what's a fun wrench to throw into this mix; squadroned tanks.

If one is partially off, the whole squad of tanks disappear.

DeathReaper wrote:Off the board is "the end of the world" as the rulebook says...

That was the FAQ regarding moving off of the board, actually. Otherwise, reserves/embarked/etc. = destroyed.
The rules still do not cover it, and the ruler is still on the table.

Hive commander, almost ALL replacements for combat tactics, Ghazghulls Waaagh, Logans rule, Autarch reserve buff.

Actually that is entirely incorrect and counter to your own point that models off the table are considered in play:

Ghazkull's Waaagh works because you bought Ghazkull (same with chapter tactics). Just as easily (and to the same effect) the codex could say that you can buy an upgraded Waaagh that gives you the same effect for x points, and then drop Ghazkull by x points. Then add a rule for Ghazkull that says you must buy the upgraded Waaagh. The waagh upgrade and chapter tactics are army wide upgrades that are unrelated to the unit other than you must purchase the unit to get the army wide ability.

Logan's rule doesn't take effect while off the table. You get to choose a special rule while off the table, but so long as you are off the table it has no effect. However this was one of the better examples and I can see it supporting your point.

Hive commander I believe was argued to no end as to whether or not it worked while off the table. While I personally would allow it to work off the table, the Autarch entry makes me see why people would argue the other way.

Autarch: This is the guy who is completely contradictory to your point. You claim that models can be 'in play' while off the table because they have a rule that takes effect. However the Autarch master strategist explicitly points out that it is usable "regardless of whether he is in play or no." Since it also explicitly says that it works while the Autarch is alive this would be a pointless line if 'alive' covered being out of play (which I agree it should, hence the Hive Commander allowance, but RAW here). However, since the codex takes the effort to explain that it works while he is 'out of play' (ie, in reserves), that must mean that being in reserves you are out of play (being in reserves equivalent to not being on the table since you can't be in play and not on the gaming surface). Therefore being 'in play' is given by the gaming surface.

Also let's take the idea of partially in and partially out. Does that mean that, so long as .0000001" of a model is inside my table quarter in a spearhead deployment I'm legally in my deployment zone? Though, yes, this is not for reserves, it is following the notion that being partially within your boundaries is being within. This is also applicable to dawn of war which says you deploy 'in [your] half of the table' which doesn't say that it must be fully in your half, and again following your logic I can deploy with .000001" in my side of the table and still satisfy the rule for being 'in my half' similar to moving on the table .000001" and being 'on' the table. I'm fairly certain that that was Kapitalist-pigs point, hence pages 92/93 (though it doesn't work with pitched battle deployment which requires you to be more than 12" from the center).

Also I agree with Tri in following the point that vehicles can only move forward and backwards (as slightly touched on on page 57). It doesn't reference any sideways vehicle movement, only forwards and reverse.

Anyway, again as people have claimed there is no real rule for dealing with this (nos you are assuming that partly on the table qualifies for 'on the table' while ignore the possiblity, which I view more likely, that being partially off the table for any reason equates to 'off the table.' An example would be for deepstriking. On page 95 it references 'if any of the models cannot be deployed because they would land off the table' they have to deal with the mishap table. By your definition this would only occur if the model was fully off the table since if they were .0000001" on the table, they would be 'on the table' because Deepstrike also does not point out whether being fully on the table is a requirement). However I would lean towards units must be fully on the table. Those which cannot move fully on the table are destroyed. Counter arguments are for the Baneblade and the Monolith. However the monolith can safely deepstrike, and so doesn't have a problem entering reserves. As for the baneblade, can we please stay in regular 40k as apocalypse (and its variants) tend to have rules issues.



Edit:

If one is partially off, the whole squad of tanks disappear.

Actually the debate is about being immobilized due to impassable terrain. Since it's a squadron, immobilized results count as destroyed, and so now you just have a smaller squadron of tanks coming on. Not really a wrench at all. It's actually easier to deal with.

Ail-Shan wrote:Autarch: This is the guy who is completely contradictory to your point. You claim that models can be 'in play' while off the table because they have a rule that takes effect. However the Autarch master strategist explicitly points out that it is usable "regardless of whether he is in play or no." Since it also explicitly says that it works while the Autarch is alive this would be a pointless line if 'alive' covered being out of play (which I agree it should, hence the Hive Commander allowance, but RAW here). However, since the codex takes the effort to explain that it works while he is 'out of play' (ie, in reserves), that must mean that being in reserves you are out of play (being in reserves equivalent to not being on the table since you can't be in play and not on the gaming surface). Therefore being 'in play' is given by the gaming surface.

This is actually the entire point. It's a rule that work even if you aren't in play, being in play means you've either deployed the unit, had it arrive from deep strike, or had it arrive from reserves - unless your codex has a different set of rules to enter a model in play. The rules do not explicitly state, at any point, that a model is destroyed if not fully on the table - this is a requirement since the rules are permissive and arriving from reserves has already given permission for a model to be placed.

In the above quoted text you are making the fatal assumption that not being fully on the table means not in play. The rules never state this. You are also vastly confusing concepts, "being in play" is not equivalent of "being on the gaming surface". Let's ignore that you're using a fourth edition codex (and also the codex with fewest unique special rules) to clarify a core rule for fifth edition.

Now, I'd like you to give a reference to where it says a model is not in play unless it is on the gaming surface. That would terminate this debate.

P.S. in a half of a table is vastly different from on a half of the table. By nos' logic being inside a boundary (which being inside a deployment zone is), you need to have each model or vehicle hull fully inside the deployment zone. You've replaced "on" with something entirely different.

P.P.S. Regarding vehicles: that's for a different YMDC, and one we've already had. Vehicle movement is never defined as forward or backward (that's pivoting defined as forward or backward momentum) only ramming has a vehicle moving forward. End of that discussion here.

Mahtamori wrote:

Ail-Shan wrote:Autarch: This is the guy who is completely contradictory to your point. You claim that models can be 'in play' while off the table because they have a rule that takes effect. However the Autarch master strategist explicitly points out that it is usable "regardless of whether he is in play or no." Since it also explicitly says that it works while the Autarch is alive this would be a pointless line if 'alive' covered being out of play (which I agree it should, hence the Hive Commander allowance, but RAW here). However, since the codex takes the effort to explain that it works while he is 'out of play' (ie, in reserves), that must mean that being in reserves you are out of play (being in reserves equivalent to not being on the table since you can't be in play and not on the gaming surface). Therefore being 'in play' is given by the gaming surface.

This is actually the entire point. It's a rule that work even if you aren't in play, being in play means you've either deployed the unit, had it arrive from deep strike, or had it arrive from reserves - unless your codex has a different set of rules to enter a model in play. The rules do not explicitly state, at any point, that a model is destroyed if not fully on the table - this is a requirement since the rules are permissive and arriving from reserves has already given permission for a model to be placed.

In the above quoted text you are making the fatal assumption that not being fully on the table means not in play. The rules never state this. You are also vastly confusing concepts, "being in play" is not equivalent of "being on the gaming surface". Let's ignore that you're using a fourth edition codex (and also the codex with fewest unique special rules) to clarify a core rule for fifth edition.
.

The reserve buff rule specifically states when it is used, so it allows you to use this while off the game surface.

you can not use most psyker powers while in reserve/off the table.

P88 has the gaming surface, it shows a clear boundary for models in play, if you are not within this surface you can not be considered in play (though you may have a special rule that overrides this)

For the deployment error - you are in error here because, although you can be measured to be within your deployment zone, I can measure to show you are outside of your deployment zone. The CONDITION of deployment is that you deploy within your zone; if i can show you are not within your zone, you have not deployed legally.

Reserves is different, as it plays a single condition: move onto. AS long as you HAVE moved onto, you have satisfied the condition. This is why you are argument fails Deathreaper. And always will until and unless they change their rules on this.

Logans High Kind rule is AT THE START of the turn you pick a power; if you drop pod / deepstrike in you do this *after* picking a power, which you areexplicitly allowed to do.

MOdel not on the table, power still worked, case proven.

I;m done arguing tjhis. The previous thread had ALL of these arguments and the not in play side were proven wrong time and time again, until the thread was locked because they kept ignoring the arguments proving them wrong. AS such unles something new can be added (and it wont be) a tank that moves PARTIALLY onto the board HAS satisfied the reserves rule, IS in play and that is the final conclusive answer.
I had already stated that, in the case where you are flush to the board edge this doesnt seem to exist within the rules - and the easiest answert was: dont have terrain placement that allows this. For a start the only practical way to do this would be to have terrain hanging off the edge of the board, which doesnt exactly work that well....

Reserves is different, as it plays a single condition: move onto. AS long as you HAVE moved onto, you have satisfied the condition

And while you prove you moved onto the table, I will prove that you didn't move onto the table, using the part of your model that is not on the table (the same as you would do for the above deployment). You are using a double standard. Also this doesn't answer the problem encountered with deepstrike when a model is partially off the table.

Also you must admit that both for The High King and for Master Strategist, the rules (or FAQ in THK's case) state that they may be used. This being the case, it is implied that normally it is ortherwise (such as with Eldar farseers and other abilities that are used at the beginning of the turn). So again, being off the table implies being out of play where you can take no action unless otherwise stated (such as with The High King or master strategist which say that they can be used while out of play).

Following this and your own argument against deployment, if I can show that you are not on the table, than you are not in play.

I;m done arguing tjhis. The previous thread had ALL of these arguments and the not in play side were proven wrong time and time again

Fair enough, this thread is long (though I enjoyed reading it). However, if I could make one last request, could you please summarize your arguments into one post just for ease of reading/understanding? I'd rather not read through all 6 pages again.

Now, I'd like you to give a reference to where it says a model is not in play unless it is on the gaming surface.

And we'll bring back up the idea of seeker missiles coming in from off the table. In addition MotO could also fire off the table since they don't need range or los. If you'd like to argue that these models, despite not being on the table can still be used, you'll likely get some interesting looks. Again the only time that abilities work while you are off the table is when the special rule specifically says so (such as with Master Strategist and the FAQ for THK). Otherwise models which are off the table have no effect on the game (where the model is required for the effect. Army changing effects such as chapter tactics obviously still take effect since they are caused by what the list includes).

P.S. in a half of a table is vastly different from on a half of the table.

True. By definition we can no longer deploy since there is no depth description for the deployment zone. Since you cannot be 'in' a flat area no model can legally be deployed. They are taken to mean the same thing or else you end up with the above (admittedly absurd) argument.

Except you have two different conditions: you cannot conflate the two situations as being the same, as they are not.

One requires you deploy within. One requires you move on. Two entirely different conditions. Yes, you can show I am also partially off the table, but that isnt a problem, as the rule only requires I'm on the table. Deployment requires that I am within an area, so if I am not I have broken that rule.

Additionally: evidence of redundancy is not evidence of necessity. SM Bikes repeat that ID does not care about the +1T from the bike, despite this being clearly explained in the rules for ID. Thus it is a redundant rule, but by your standard it would be a necessary one.

Ail-Shan wrote:And while you prove you moved onto the table, I will prove that you didn't move onto the table, using the part of your model that is not on the table

No, you will prove the model was not entirely moved onto the table.

Just as when you move your landraider one can pick a point on its hull--say its roof--and declare that it is not entirely on the table.


Prove to me the ruler is not on the table.

@Kirsanth: Yes you were right that was a bad comment on my part, and was better used in the second case.

@nos: I am not required to deploy within, only in. So long as part of the model is in the deployment zone, by your own argument, I am in the deployment zone. Yes I am also out of the deployment zone, but nowhere in the rule for deployment does it say I cannot deploy outside my zone at all. Therefore, being partially in the deployment zone, I am still in the deployment zone and legally deployed.

And again, if you can say I'm illegally deployed because I'm partially outside of my deployment zone, you are not in play because you are partially off the table.

SM Bikes repeat that ID does not care about the +1T from the bike

Can you give me a page number as I can't seem to find that? Being so it still seems that models off the table are out of play since in order to use any ability off the table it must be explicitly said in the codex or FAQ in the Wolves' case.

Its in the rulebook now - it used to be in the codex. See the rules for bikes. Anyways, as was stated - what you see as necessity can equally be redundancy; unless you can find a rule stating off table == not in play, cannot do anything whatsoever at all, then they are not [not in play....at all]

You are required to deploy "in his half" (etc); not at all the same condition as being required to be "on" the table. Not sure how else to explain that two conditions arent the same, so you cant conflate an argument in that way....hell, the two words are entirely different, for a start!

"in his half"

"within his half" would have been better but hey it GW they don't even write how to deploy units any more.

Tri wrote:

"in his half"

"within his half" would have been better but hay it GW they don't even right how to deploy units any more.

"Write".

Do GW have to tell you what the letter "a" means too?

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

"in his half"

"within his half" would have been better but hey it GW they don't even wright how to deploy units any more.

"Write".

Do GW have to tell you what the letter "a" means too?

Yep but then you're not paying me for rules ... and a dyslexic sod like me would make damn sure someone reread anything I did plan on publishing.

So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

Slackermagee wrote:So, wait, what gave us permission to leave a model half off the table again?

Half on not half off.
We were asked to move them on to the table as if moving on from just off the board ... since there is no written penalty for being unable to get all the way on we must assume that GW wanted it that way.