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.

Actually it states that you have a playing area

Actually actually, it states that you have a playing surface that has edges that you must be on (read page 88. it only states that you must be 'on' the playing surface).

standard missions are designed to be played on a 6'x4' gaming surface

That is directly out of page 88. Nowhere does it say 'in,' 'within,' or anything synonymous. Only on, and it defines edges. With the argument that being partially on is on, you are still on the gaming surface as defined by page 88.

I was speaking of bases/parts that touch the table, since by default, vehicles do not have a base.
For models with bases they have to be fully on the table.
For models without bases the parts that touch the table have to be fully on the table.
Thus your argument is completely wrong.

That point wasn't directed at you DeathReaper.

Only things that are within this playing area count as being in play.

Again, it says 'on' when defining the gaming surface as well. If it said 'in,' than you would be irrefutably correct, but it does not.

Ouze wrote:
I think this probably is a question for the INAT, yes?

Good luck getting a reasonable answer in a reasonable amount of time.

Ail-Shan wrote:

Actually it states that you have a playing area

Actually actually, it states that you have a playing surface that has edges that you must be on (read page 88. it only states that you must be 'on' the playing surface).

So the playing surface has a defined area right? That means you need to be in that area. Thanks for the help!

standard missions are designed to be played on a 6'x4' gaming surface

That is directly out of page 88. Nowhere does it say 'in,' 'within,' or anything synonymous. Only on, and it defines edges. With the argument that being partially on is on, you are still on the gaming surface as defined by page 88.

Again, you have a defined area and that means you need to be in that area. Thanks for the help!

I was speaking of bases/parts that touch the table, since by default, vehicles do not have a base.
For models with bases they have to be fully on the table.
For models without bases the parts that touch the table have to be fully on the table.
Thus your argument is completely wrong.

That point wasn't directed at you DeathReaper.

Only things that are within this playing area count as being in play.

Again, it says 'on' when defining the gaming surface as well. If it said 'in,' than you would be irrefutably correct, but it does not.

So what your saying is that what matters the most is that it says on instead of in, when there is a defined playing area? So is the model in the area it has to be on? No because the whole model is not in the playing area it is half in and half out. Therefore it is not in that area that is defined but partially on it.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
So what your saying is that what matters the most is that it says on instead of in, when there is a defined playing area? So is the model in the area it has to be on? No because the whole model is not in the playing area it is half in and half out. Therefore it is not in that area that is defined but partially on it.

So what you're saying is that you get to dictate how the defined playing area functions and not the rules?
There are rules handling several interactions with the playing area/edges (such as those for falling back or deployment) but nothing there that supports this idea to modify how models that legally moved onto an edge from reserves must act.
Following a completely legal sequence of actions to a result that the rules don't actually say is illegal means the result is, surprisingly enough, perfectly legal.

People are fabricating claims from their personal views on how it *should* work, not basing them on the actual rules. If they were, they'd be able to point to actual specific support of their claims.
All of this 'things half in aren't legal targets and are destroyed' stuff is just personal bias on how you would play it, not the rules.

Deathreaper - we're still waiting for some actual proof Neither mathematically are linguistically does your point hold water. You appear to believe in commutative rules when that is a horrible logical fallacy, and so on.

Troll seems about right.

Gorkamorka - I'm done here, there is no arguing with those who refuse to see their failings. Have fun with them!

This thread, and several posters in it, are pretty much on what we shall refer to as "strike two" currently, unless you have an overwhelming desire to get the thread locked and take a short vacation then, please, cool your jets a bit and lay off the cheap shots, accusations and general name calling. ta.

.... wow lots of people looking for rules that just aren't there. Games workshop does not write all the rules. Look for deployment you get one instruction deploy in your X more then X" from the enemy.

We then have to fill in the more important rules like No deploying in impassible terrain and no placing models on top of one another

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Units that fall back and touch the table edge are destroyed, this must mean the edge is out of play for units.

...

Seriously?

Units that are falling back and hit the edge are removed BECAUSE THE RULES FOR FALLING BACK SAY SO.

You have just gone and committed the "Tiger Repelling Rock" or the "I have Legs, a Tiger has Legs, therefore I am a Tiger" logical fallacy.

Just because units falling back have a special interaction with the table edge doesn't mean all units do.

Syllogism is the word you are looking for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules are clearly incomplete and a mess in this circumstance, or there would not be any room for argument.

The key point for me is that allowing models to deploy only 1mm on to the table creates all sorts of practical problems, such as supporting them in mid-air, determining their LoS and cover status, and so on.

I'm personally with Gwar! and Nos on this one, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, and clarify one point that Deathreaper made that resonated with me earlier in this thread.

We can agree that placing the vehicle fully on the table is legal placement.

We can agree that placing the vehicle fully off of the table is illegal placement.

We can agree that placing the vehicle partially on the table fulfils the requirement that the vehicle be "on" the table, as "partially on" is, in fact, "on."

However, can't we also say that since the rules do not specifically say that "partially on" is "on," and since we're using real-world logic to solve this one (not BRB logic, which is somewhat distinct), then "partially off" could also fulfil the requirement that the vehicle be "off" of the table.

So if we are allowed to say that "partially on" is "fully on," then we must also agree that "partially off" is "fully off," since just like "partially on" is "on," "partially off" is just as easily "off."

The vehicle, placed partially on and partially off of the table, is, logically, both on and off the table at the same time.

Thus, the rules contradict themselves here, and a house rule is in order, in my opinion. RAW, the game breaks and the universe implodes. However, a reasonable house rule would be to allow a vehicle partially off and partially on the table to be considered fully on the table, since numerous examples of vehicles that are longer than six inches will simply mean a lot of illegally placed vehicles when coming in from reserve. Baneblades won't be able to do it at all. And that sucks.

SaintHazard wrote:since we're using real-world logic to solve this one

The same way we use Real World logic to determine what the letter "a" means, the word "and" means and how far "2 inches" is.

SaintHazard wrote:We can agree that placing the vehicle fully off of the table is illegal placement.

? wait what? If you're playing devils advocate where does it say you can't be off the board? We are told, During deployment, were to be and ,when moving, we are told told that we cannot move off the board: nether of which say you must be on the board. There is the rule that if there are no units left on the table you win but that still doesn't force you to be on the table. Even falling back being off the table doesn't kill the unit its touching the edge that does.

Tri wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:We can agree that placing the vehicle fully off of the table is illegal placement.

? wait what? If you're playing devils advocate where does it say you can't be off the board? We are told, During deployment, were to be and ,when moving, we are told told that we cannot move off the board: nether of which say you must be on the board. There is the rule that if there are no units left on the table you win but that still doesn't force you to be on the table. Even falling back being off the table doesn't kill the unit its touching the edge that does.

If you're coming in from reserve, you can't place the vehicle off the board entirely.

That was determined on page 1 of this thread. It's kind of a no-brainer.

SaintHazard wrote:

Tri wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:We can agree that placing the vehicle fully off of the table is illegal placement.

? wait what? If you're playing devils advocate where does it say you can't be off the board? We are told, During deployment, were to be and ,when moving, we are told told that we cannot move off the board: nether of which say you must be on the board. There is the rule that if there are no units left on the table you win but that still doesn't force you to be on the table. Even falling back being off the table doesn't kill the unit its touching the edge that does.

If you're coming in from reserve, you can't place the vehicle off the board entirely.

That was determined on page 1 of this thread. It's kind of a no-brainer.

Actually all you do is place the model just off the board and then it must move on ... by getting 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% onto the board it has done that.

So wheres it say a unit must be on the board? I'm not talking about must move on or anything just in general that you can't have a unit off the board.

If part of a model's base is within 2" of an access point, can the model embark, despite not ENTIRELY being within 2"?

If one model from a unit of 12 is within synapse range, does the ENTIRE unit need to test?

Does an ENTIRE base need to be within 2" to be legally within coherency?

Does any part of the book actually state that when a non-Deepstriking model moves PARTLY onto the board it is destroyed?
(or anything else , actually?)

Tri wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Tri wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:We can agree that placing the vehicle fully off of the table is illegal placement.

? wait what? If you're playing devils advocate where does it say you can't be off the board? We are told, During deployment, were to be and ,when moving, we are told told that we cannot move off the board: nether of which say you must be on the board. There is the rule that if there are no units left on the table you win but that still doesn't force you to be on the table. Even falling back being off the table doesn't kill the unit its touching the edge that does.

If you're coming in from reserve, you can't place the vehicle off the board entirely.

That was determined on page 1 of this thread. It's kind of a no-brainer.

Actually you do place the model just off the board and then must move on ... by getting 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% onto the board it has done that.

So wheres it say you must be on the board? I'm not talking about must move on or anything just in general that you can't have unit off the board.

Dude, are you not paying attention? This entire thread is about what happens if you CANNOT get onto the board. Page 1. Go read it. If the terrain is 100% flush up to the nanometer against the edge, you place the vehicle OUTSIDE of the terrain when it's immobilized. It's off the board, therefore destroyed.

You just said exactly what I said when I said

SaintHazard wrote:We can agree that placing the vehicle partially on the table fulfils the requirement that the vehicle be "on" the table, as "partially on" is, in fact, "on."

PAY ATTENTION.

kirsanth wrote:Does any part of the book actually state that when a non-Deepstriking model moves PARTLY onto the board it is destroyed?
(or anything else , actually?)

Well even if they move off the board that doesn't destroy them ... its a bad roll on the mishap table that does that ... or the game ending before they come on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:Dude, are you not paying attention? This entire thread is about what happens if you CANNOT get onto the board. Page 1. Go read it. If the terrain is 100% flush up to the nanometer against the edge, you place the vehicle OUTSIDE of the terrain when it's immobilized. It's off the board, therefore destroyed.

You just said exactly what I said when I said

SaintHazard wrote:We can agree that placing the vehicle partially on the table fulfils the requirement that the vehicle be "on" the table, as "partially on" is, in fact, "on."

PAY ATTENTION.

Not until the end of the game is it destroyed. Therotically a transport like a rhino could drive on later after fixing its self. Edit well technically nothing but wipe-out destroy units off the board (unless its DSing then its destroyed if its still in reserves)

Tri wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Does any part of the book actually state that when a non-Deepstriking model moves PARTLY onto the board it is destroyed?
(or anything else , actually?)

Well even if they move of the board that doesn't destroy them ... its a bad roll on the mishap table that does that ... or the game ending before they come on.

Agreed, but deepstriking is the one way this is true--which is why I called it out.

Deepstrikiing is the only way the Deepstrike mishap table applies--and then only on a mishap.
Applying part of it (the harshest 1/3 I might add) to any other unit's movement is simply outside of the rules.

I think we lost track of where this is going. So to try and get back to where we started. Poke!!!!

So I will say it again. We have a defined playing area 6 feet by 4 feet. If the vehicle which has been immoblized, is at any point not within the 6 feet by 4 feet clearly defined area how do you treat it?

Well to me I would say it is not a legal particpant in the game. Not that it is destroyed, just that it cannot do anything do to not being within the defined board edge. (I know this sounds like destroyed but it is not) You who have been saying that all you need to satisfy is the on the board issue. Well that is not true because you have a very clearly defined board edge, the game was and is designed to play with the 6 feet by 4 feet table edges. Now you have a different problem because you are willfully breaking the game to not loose something that is yours. You must observe the gaming area edges for they are the end of the world, and anything that is not within that area cannot be a part of the game seeing how it destroys one of the design elements. Also it is one of the core rules.

If you change any part of the playing area it is still defined by the players. So if you were to choose a 10 foot by 12 foot table you still have the edges and playing area clearly defined and in order to play the game you must observe the rules for the area otherwise the gaming area would not matter.

Not at all.

That was covered.

Yes, it can be asserted that on the table is entirely on the table.

It can be proven, however, that partly on the table is in fact, on the table.

It can be proven that not on the table cannot be on the table.

All that said, there is no rule telling you what to do if a model moves partly on the table.

There are, in fact, rules telling you what to do if a model moves OFF the table, but to apply those rules to models moving ON to the table causes rules to break or needs rules to be invented.

To allow models partly on the table to be counted as on the table follows logic and the rules, and (using WMS--a rule) has no problems other than not being entirely on the table. Which is never actually asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:We have a defined playing area 6 feet by 4 feet. If the vehicle which has been immoblized, is at any point not within the 6 feet by 4 feet clearly defined area how do you treat it?

Just because I touched on this as well. . .

kirsanth wrote:If part of a model's base is within 2" of an access point, can the model embark, despite not ENTIRELY being within 2"?

If one model from a unit of 12 is within synapse range, does the ENTIRE unit need to test?

Does an ENTIRE base need to be within 2" to be legally within coherency?

Does any part of the book actually state that when a non-Deepstriking model moves PARTLY onto the board it is destroyed?
(or anything else , actually?)

KP - actually the gaming surface again only requires models to be "on" the surface. Partially on still, 100%, satisfies this requirement.

You have consistently been unable to show a requirement to be "fully" on, either the playing surface or as part of the reserves rules. As such you follow the only rules you DO have: the model is perfectly, 100% able to be deplpyed OR move on from reserves partially onto the table. It functions exactly 100% as normal.

And done.

And no you guys are ignoring the restriction of the playing area yet again.

I will say it again. Defined area (this is where you play). Models need to be in/on playing area to be determined part of the game.

You have a model that is both in play (on a part of the 6 by 4 foot table) and partially off (hanging over one of the edges of the table).

Where, in this permissive rule set game does it say you can do this? I am asserting that since there is a defined area of play that you must (not can) must play within and on this area. So Nos come up with that and I will come up with mine.

Addtionally, models such as baneblades are not legal in regular games unless agreed upon ahead of time at which point you discuss with your opponent.

Please quote the rule that states the models must be "in" the playing area.

They need to be on it, not in it.

If they're partially on it, they're on it.

That's the point.

It's legal.

Please for the love of god stop saying partially on is on because partially on is also OFF!!! For the hundreth time seriously that is not a valid arguement because I can show you where it is off the table.

Furthermore you break more rules of the game by having it partially off the table because you cannot measure to or from certain parts of the vehicle.

1) We can agree that when a vehicle is on the table, it's legal. Please show me the rule that states that part of a vehicle off the table is illegal.

2) Nothing in the rulebook says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. When you measure movement, you measure "from the hull." It's not specific as to where. When you measure range for shooting, you measure from the weapon - you can easily choose not to shoot with a weapon from which you cannot measure range. When you measure shooting AT a vehicle, you measure to the hull. Again, it is not specific as to where. None of these scenarios are in any way hampered by an inability to measure to a portion of the vehicle.

Question, if a vehicle was on the table, but one of its weapons was "off", would it be allowed to shoot that weapon?

liam0404 wrote:Question, if a vehicle was on the table, but one of its weapons was "off", would it be allowed to shoot that weapon?

I'm totally going to pull a Gwar! here.

Can you measure range from that weapon?

The answer to my question is the answer to your question.

And I would anwser No! The wepon is neither on or in the playing area. And yes how about if I were to assault the vehicle, it technically has no back end seeing how it is out of the playing area I cannot target something that is not in the playing area as that would illegally add distance to the playing area..

Another misinterpretation. You're not hitting rear armor in close combat, you're simply using the vehicle's rear armor value to resolve armor penetration rolls. You're still targeting the vehicle itself, not the rear armor - indeed, in close combat, you're not targeting any particular armor facing at all.

How about shooting?

You fire at the hull. The direction from which the firer is shooting lets you determine the armor facing that is hit. You can't have a shooter firing from off the board, so there's no way to hit the armor facing that is also off the board. It's no different than lining your Predator up right flush against the board. A firer can't fit behind it, even if it's 100% on the board, so nobody can hit its rear armor facing. Same thing. So there's really no practical difference.