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.

KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

The precedent set is that nothing that is off the table can interact with the anything on it until it comes onto the table unless otherwise specified. Using this precedent, if the vehicle isn't on the table it cannot interact with anything that is until it is also on the table since the dangerous terrain rules don't specify that it can affect units off the board. For the vehicle to be immobilized by the terrain it has to be placed on the board. Once it has moved up far enough to be placed on the table it can now interact with the terrain, which will cause it to be immobilized. Since the rulebook doesn't cover this situation, this is what I feel is the most playable solution while adhering to the rules as much as possible. Having things hang off the board is not an acceptable solution as some people play on tables that are only 4' by 6' and no where to "hang" models off the board. Counting the vehicle as destroyed has less basis in the rules because no where in the rules is it supported. While the vehicle should be immobilized as soon as it reaches the terrain piece, but how can the model reach the terrain piece if it is not on the table?

Oh and by the way that ruler isn't glued to the table. I had a statics class in which the professor did nearly the exact same thing as a demonstration of moments of force. It really does work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

P.88 Says that standard missions are designed to be played on a 6' by 4'gaming surface.

on means on, where does it say you can be off the table?

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:The precedent set is that nothing that is off the table can interact with the anything on it until it comes onto the table unless otherwise specified. Using this precedent, if the vehicle isn't on the table it cannot interact with anything that is until it is also on the table since the dangerous terrain rules don't specify that it can affect units off the board. For the vehicle to be immobilized by the terrain it has to be placed on the board. Once it has moved up far enough to be placed on the table it can now interact with the terrain, which will cause it to be immobilized. Since the rulebook doesn't cover this situation, this is what I feel is the most playable solution while adhering to the rules as much as possible. Having things hang off the board is not an acceptable solution as some people play on tables that are only 4' by 6' and no where to "hang" models off the board. Counting the vehicle as destroyed has less basis in the rules because no where in the rules is it supported. While the vehicle should be immobilized as soon as it reaches the terrain piece, but how can the model reach the terrain piece if it is not on the table?

Oh and by the way that ruler isn't glued to the table. I had a statics class in which the professor did nearly the exact same thing as a demonstration of moments of force. It really does work.

I like the underlined above, seems the fair way to play it.

I am still waiting for the page number for the rules telling you that the unit should be destroyed.

For those saying it should be destroyed--I say you are correct but only if it is your own unit.

My opponent's units will be allowed to move onto the table--as there is no rule saying to destroy them for not ALSO being entirely on the table.

If my own models ever manage to do this (it is almost impossible), without having discussed this prior to the game, I would allow my opponent to rule them be destroyed--despite there being no rule allowing it. I tend to bring up a list of items with people I have not played before.

tl/dr=play the weaker version for yourself, or play right. The best do both.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

Just my two cents (I remain steadfastly neutral here!)

Consider the rules in the book for passengers disembarking for a destroyed vehicle (i,e, an emergency disembark). The rules say that models that cannot possibly fit on to the board due to constraints (i.e. space, enemy models, dangerous/impassible terrain) are destroyed. In terms of "having space on the table", wouldn't the vehicle suffer similar penalties?

Kilkrazy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

You must move "onto", with no qualifications to this. Partially onto satisfies this requirement.

Kilkrazy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

The rule that says you must move on the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - find a rule stating that being fully on is required. You're just makingthe same ludicrous argument that results in any non-2D model being destroyed.

Where is the rule that states units and models are allowed to be partly on the table?

The rule that says you must move on the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Yes but where in that statment is it giving you permission to move it on partially?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Yes but where in that statment is it giving you permission to move it on partially?

Nowhere, because it doesn't need to.

Partially ON is still ON.

Again, yes or no, is the ruler on the table? Yes, it is.

So, can I assume that you think any model that isn't 2D is auto destroyed when deployed? Since the top half is not fully on the table either!

It does not need to, as "partially on" is still "on".

"Did you set that man on fire?"
"No, I set him partially on fire."
"So you admit to setting him on fire?"
"No. Didn't you listen? I set him PARTIALLY on fire!"
"Guilty."

Nice.

Gwar! wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Yes but where in that statment is it giving you permission to move it on partially?

Nowhere, because it doesn't need to.

Partially ON is still ON.

Again, yes or no, is the ruler on the table? Yes, it is.

So, can I assume that you think any model that isn't 2D is auto destroyed when deployed? Since the top half is not fully on the table either!

No you guys are ignoring another rule and how your moving partially on is breaking it. Simply put this question has more then one side to it, and is effected by multiple things. You are saying that moving it partially onto the board makes it legal. Problem is there is a defined playing surface. Period, you cannot refute this. So placing, moving, and postioning your models in any way that circumvents the playing area rule is not allowed. (unless it has a specail rule allowing it)

Addtionally, I see you guys consistently saying the rules have to give permission to do something. In this problem you are infering that partially on fulfills the requirement. You are qualifying your anwser with no real back up. You need to show me, and everyone else, where on means partially on. Don't give me that it fulfills it therefore you do not need to do this. Give me verbatum where in the rulebook it says this and what it says. Once you do that we can continue this discussion.

So you are saying that 100% of a model has to be touching the playing surface or it counts as destroyed?

kirsanth wrote:So you are saying that 100% of a model has to be touching the playing surface or it counts as destroyed?

Yes, he is.

Oh noes, my poor Land Raider, it's roof is not touching the table, it now assplode!

No, I am not saying that it is destroyed I am saying that you cannot have a model that is not in the playing surface.
... how do you get me saying that the model needs to be in the playing surface to 100 % of the model has to be touching the surface....

I think what KP is getting at is that 100% of the model's base (or in the case of vehicles, their bottom tracks, feet, flying base, or whatever it is) has to be in play.

Despite no such rule exisitng.

Find a rule saying that, please.

liam0404 wrote:I think what KP is getting at is that 100% of the model's base (or in the case of vehicles, their bottom tracks, feet, flying base, or whatever it is) has to be in play.

So the vehicle is destroyed when it tries to move on from reserves, because it's 'bottom tracks' aren't on the playing surface?

I didn't say that, I just said that I think that's what KP was trying to say. My 2 cents are earlier on this page.

liam0404 wrote:I didn't say that, I just said that I think that's what KP was trying to say. My 2 cents are earlier on this page.

I didn't say you did, I was just pointing out the absurdity of the assertion.

Yeah I can see you point.

If i was pushed to answer id say that once it was on the table (partially or not), it's in play.

How would you play it though, if it was half on/half off the table? I'd hate to balance my models like that (assuming that its not a big table).

I'd play it as written - they are partially on / off. If balance is an issue invoke WMS.
Done. Really really simple, and requies no made up rule.

OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

So my Battlewagon HAS to move crusing speed when it comes in from reserves or it asspoldes?!?

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

Nothing.

The unit is legally on the table.

Is it a (albeit legal) dick move? Yes, but so are Crawling Wraithlord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General_Chaos wrote:So my Battlewagon HAS to move crusing speed when it comes in from reserves or it asspoldes?!?

No. It can move Combat speed just fine.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

Nothing.

The unit is legally on the table.

No, as you cannot measure coherency to models not (at least partially) on the table.

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

Pitched Battle and Spearhead talks about deploying "in deployement zone" which is vastly different from "on the table". Dawn of War is different, though, and it seems in Dawn of War deploying models merely "on the table" is sufficient.

So, it depends on scenario whether models may be deployed slighly off the table.

Ah, I misread it. I thought you meant that the whole unit was deployed like that.

In that case, that is an ILLEGAL deployment, since you have models that are not on the table. All the models must be on the table.

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

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

Is the ruler off 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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I'd play it as written - they are partially on / off. If balance is an issue invoke WMS.
Done. Really really simple, and requies no made up rule.

On is inclusive, if part of your base is off, then the model (read it says model, not partial model) is not on the table since we can clearly see a part of its base that is not on the table.