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.

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

The rule saying you only need to be on. Not "fully" on, but just on. Partially on fully, 100% and in every way imaginable satisfies that SINGLE requirement.

Its in the rulebook now - it used to be in the codex. See the rules for bikes.

Then that's relevant. Your original reason for bringing that up was to argue my point that since Master Strategist explicitly says "even when he is not in play" and the SW FAQ says that THK works while in reserves does not necessarily mean that units off the table are considered out of play. However, since these rules are explained as such, and you cannot find an example of a redundant ruling (the reason you brought up bikes counting the lower toughness for ID being mentioned in both the BRB and the codex, a point which is false), it is than implied that models which are off the board are not in play. You haven't provided a counter to that point other than "the rules say they aren't not in play directly."

unless you can find a rule stating off table == not in play

And again, the rules also don't say that you cannot fire a master of the ordnance while off the table. Similarly an Eldar farseer cannot (as far as I've read or seen played) fortune or guide their own unit, despite being forced to be within range to do so even while off the table. If you do not allow a farseer to do so, you are being inconsistent by saying that units off the table are not [not in play...at all] yet not letting them use their abilities. There is no rule restricting the use of psychic powers to 'on the table.' As a side note, based on the points that I have made about models being off the table being 'not in play,' it would seem that Runes of Warding would not be in effect while the farseer was off the table as well (never had that happen).

However, for the most part I think I'll leave it here as I do see your guys' points (thanks to Tri's last post. Thank you for summing up instead of sarcastically replying). I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Of course as one last point, mind you that WMS only takes effect when terrain causes the problem. So, RAW at least, you still must be able to balance your model on the edge of the table (much like that ruler....crazy ruler).

Tri wrote:

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.

ROFL Half on IS Half off...

I can not believe i just had to type that.

Ali - no, you misunderstand. The rule for Bikes in the BRB talks about the extra toughness not affecting ID. Example of a redundant rule.

But the point still stands: You are stating that a lack of a rule implies requirement, whereas it could simply be a lack of redundancy. Without that proof your argument on requiring falls flat.

In addition you CAN deny Farseers their powers: measure their range in order to use any of the powers. You cannot do so, so the power fails. Still consistent.

MotO still requires you to measure range. You cannot do so while off the table. You also cannot prove that he didnt move during that turn, so are again denied firing. All of which doesnt alter that Logans rule does work, and worked before the FAQ.

Deathreaper - sorry, that isnt an argument. Find a requirement to not be half off, and you may have a point. You dont.

DeathReaper wrote:

Tri wrote:

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.

ROFL Half on IS Half off...

I can not believe i just had to type that.

No the game cares not a fig if you're half off. It does however want you to be on the board and since half on is on ... well we've covered that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

The rule saying you only need to be on. Not "fully" on, but just on. Partially on fully, 100% and in every way imaginable satisfies that SINGLE requirement.

Well, there you go. The rule says that you need to be on, not that you can be on. If it had not made a necessity out of it and gave you an out through a permissive wording (such as 'can'), I'd buy that models could be half off the table.

Does the back half of a landraider need to be on the table less than the front half of the landraider?

Ali - no, you misunderstand. The rule for Bikes in the BRB talks about the extra toughness not affecting ID. Example of a redundant rule.

The problem I have with that is that it is not a redundant rule. It is mentioned once in the BRB and nowhere else, hence is just a rule.

measure their range in order to use any of the powers.

Try to argue that my farseer is more than 6" from herself and watch the universe implode

Seriously though I can understand the not measuring bit (hence not being able to cast on other units), but trying to say that you're out of range of yourself is a bit off. Also what about the librarian power that just says 'he and his unit get a 5+ invuln'? Is that allowed while off the table?

As for the MotO, the point about 'prove he didn't move' is good. However, he doesn't require range.

Now to prevent any hassle and pointing out I made a mistake I'll point it out myself.

While, yes, WMS does state that it works only for terrain, it can be argued (rather decisively) that the table is clear terrain, and therefore terrain, and so WMS is in effect.

Well, there you go. The rule says that you need to be on, not that you can be on.

The point is though that, taking the model as a whole, it technically is on the table if part of it is on the table, thus satisfying the requirements of reserves. I have a problem with this in that it means you can voluntarily move partially onto the table from reserves (for what purpose I have no idea, other than gaining another 4" of firing line), but it does make sense, but whether or not I have a problem with the rule has no bearing on whether or not that is how it is played.

That isn't what the rule says though. By your logic the top half of the Land Raider is not on the table either.

I wouldn't say that. More to the point is that the model is always considered as a whole (you can't blow up the front half of a land raider).

Slackermagee wrote:Does the back half of a landraider need to be on the table less than the front half of the landraider?

That isn't what the rule says though. By your logic the top half of the Land Raider is not on the table either.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Does the back half of a landraider need to be on the table less than the front half of the landraider?

That isn't what the rule says though. By your logic the top half of the Land Raider is not on the table either.

Well, if 'needs' doesn't mandate that the model be on the table then what does it mandate? Are we entertaining the idea that an absent word trumps a present word?

And Gwar, why reduce it to the absurd? Front half = 3". Whatever, either way, same point. The landraider doesn't need to be 3" onto the table, the landraider needs to be on the table. If a part of the landraider isn't on table, it isn't satisfying the 'needs' part.

but you can bring on a land raider if you turn it side on can't you?

I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

This debate is moving to the absurd.

And now, 7 pages later, no one has managed to spot any rules in the rule book stating what happens to a model that's not fully on the table. It's really that simple. Since the rules tell you how to move, if such a move fails there must be a consequence. If the rules do not provide a consequence, all this jabbering means nothing since you'd be debating RAI or RAP (in other words, take it to a different section of the forums).
What happens to a model that's not fully on the table? State the page in the BRB where it says that.

Me, I claim no such page exist.

P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

Mahtamori wrote:P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

Well if you're making up rule wouldn't it be fairer to do what happens when something goes wrong when you DS. Would have solved a lot of problems if it was the Reserves mishap table ... roll on the table if you're unit cannot be placed due to impassible terrain, being immobilized off the table (these units will DS in later ^_^), the board edge being blocked or DSing off the table.

Slackermagee wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

Mahtamori wrote:

P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

That's the OP for you.

Note: he hasn't posted in pages or backed up his argument.

Che-Vito wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:

P.S. If you're wondering, we're having this debate because someone took it upon himself to state that a model that's not fully on a gaming surface is destroyed according to RAW - without providing a reference for this statement.

That's the OP for you.

Note: he hasn't posted in pages or backed up his argument.

being fair his last post was Friday... he may have better things to do with his weekend ^_^

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Thankfully, the ruleset is nuanced enough that a random motivational poster can't be shoehorned into a RAW discussion successfully. Mainly because the ruler doesn't have a clause 'needing' it to be on the table and is lacking rules permtting it to be off of the table.





Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whoops, iTouch fluffed that last post.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I am reducing it to the absurd? You are the one claiming that the top half isn't on the table!

As kirsanth asked before, is the ruler on the table? A simple Yes or No one word answer please.

Uh, yeah. You are. To discredit an analysis of the raw without actually having to come up with anything in return.

That crazy physics ruler in the past? It's partially on the table. If it were a leman russ, it would still be partially on the table. Is the entire model satisfying the need to be on the table? No. Is there anything that permits it to NOT need to be on the table? No.

Again, words that are present would seem (logically) to trump words/rules that are absent.

Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

No it is not on the table. (I can clearly point to a large portion of the ruler that is not on the table)
and
Yes it is on the table. (I can also clearly point to a small portion of the ruler that is on the table)

at the same time. It exists in both spaces.

that is not a simple yes or no question.

The game surface has a clearly defined edge.(P.88) it also says that standard missions are designed to be played on a 6' by 4'gaming surface.

and since you have to follow this rule, no part of the base can be off the gaming surface.

And, like many other competitive games/sports, you have to stay within the playing surface otherwise you are out of bounds.

DeathReaper wrote:
And, like many other competitive games/sports, you have to stay within the playing surface otherwise you are out of bounds.

Logical fallacy, many sports exist where, not only is <100% (of the ball) allowed to be 'outside the field of play' but in which the whole body of the player is allowed outside the field.

And to mention, you still have not adressed how half on the table is not on the table. (Hint being half off the table means one's on the table (rofl I can't belive I just had to type that))

DeathReaper wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Was my question too difficult?

Once again:
Is the ruler on the table.

Please answer either "Yes" or "No". It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. Ergo, it must be ONE or the OTHER. So please, pick one.

No it is not on the table. (I can clearly point to a large portion of the ruler that is not on the table)
and
Yes it is on the table. (I can also clearly point to a small portion of the ruler that is on the table)

that is not a simple yes or no question.

Yes, it is a simple yes or no question.
It's partially on the table. That means it's on the table.
It also means that it's partially off the table and not fully on the table, but neither of those have any bearing on the question or the rule requirements. It's on the table.

If a tank can be partially off the table when entering from reserve because it was immobilized by DT, and this is a legal status, can I choose to drive all of my tanks from reserve partially onto the board, thus removing the ability for anyone to shoot at my rear or side armor?

Ah, so you're trying to voluntarily place a model off the board, well find a rule saying you can do that then sure

Ali-shan. Sigh. PLease, look it up.

THe Bike rule (NOT THE ID RULE) states that the extra toughness is ignored for ID. The ID rules, on different pages, state that modified toughness is ignroed for ID.

Mentioned in 2 places, the Bike entry is entirely redundant, done.

While the MotO does not need range, he is NOT exempt from step 2: check range and LOS. While you have "unlimited"range you still have to be able to measure to it. Whuile your farseer is off the table youc annot measure to either the farseer or their unit (and you CANNOT prove they are in the same unit, as you cannot measure to them) - see, all denied by the simple inability to measure to the object. Worth thinking your examples through a little more next time

Slackermages - prove there is a line stating "FULLY", or any variation thereof, and you may have a point. Oh wait, after 7 pages of asking for this exact same thing noone has been able to find it.

Guess what; it deosnt exist. A requirement to be on the table is fully satisfied by being partially on. Slackermage, over to you - please find something to refute that, linguistically, venn diagramattically, whatever - just something. Otherwise your current claim that the top of the LR is not on the table (logical conclusion to your "argument") will have to go down in dakka history...

Nos; I'm pretty sure Slackermage is taking the redutio ad absurdum (Spelling anyone seriously?) approach to hose down the 'half a base isn't in the table' argument.

Not sure he is, but anyway....

Fair enough, you win the redundancy argument. And good pointwith the MotO. However, I again ask you to prove that my farseer is more than 6" from himself. In addition there is no rule in neither the Eldar codex nor the BRB that talks about measuring range for psychic powers (other than that using a psychic shooting attack is counted as firing a ranged weapon, and so follows the same rules other than when stated otherwise).

Also since you declare reserves before the game starts and where the IC is, it seems hard to say that they are not a unit, though arguable yes (saying they don't come together until right before arriving from reserves).

And yes, the ruler is on the table.

Measure to your farseer. You cant, therefore you cannot prove he is within 6" of himself.

Faintly rediculous, yes. Still valid. Also all the eldar powers have a range - in order to measure this range you have to, well, be able to actually measure it. Which you cannot do while off the table.

I cannot believe I am gonna have to type this but here we go. If the playing surface is defined, and you have something that is off the playing surface for any reason (other then allowed by a rule, Reserves, and what not) is breaking the rules about the playing surface. Please point to a reference about how having any part of the model in the rules stating that a model may be partially on the table and partially off is allowed. If I can quote your for a "permissive rules".

Now then, any sod can glue a ruler to a table and throw a hammer onto it to prove a point. That is niether here nor there for this arguement as it is a red haring. You are distracting people from the real arguement with that and I find it absurd that everyone is asking if it is on the table or off and demanding a simple yes or no anwser.

I find it absurd that someone would claim the rules back calling a unit destroyed without being able to point to a rule backing that point of view.