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.

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.