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.

If there was any precedent or other rules regarding any unit being 'partially' on the board, I could see grounds for a discussion. A unit is either on the board or off the board. if a unit is off the board, there must be a specific rationale for it (reserves, deep strike, scouts, etc).

No halfsies.

I think the rule where it talks about models leaving the board covers being partially on the table. If you tried pulling that sh*t in my gaming club, you'd get laughed out.


**Edit**
And by leaving the board, I mean running away.

Yes there is a section in the fall back that says if they come into contact with the edge of the board they are removed, but of course Cordump will twist it around somehow and claim that moving onto the board means that he only needs the slightest sliver of base on the board, and then will probably claim that his models can shoot at stuff but cant be shot at in some convoluted rapeage of the English language.

of course this is entirely hypothetical of course. I'm sure no one would actually think of doing such a ridiculous thing.

When Gwar quotes the rules

When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge.

When Gwar makes things up

Onto the table doesn't include "Partially onto the the table" or "Off the table" but it does include "Fully onto the table".

Can you find a rule, anything, to say that 'onto the table' *only* means 'fully onto the table'??
Can you? I have asked several times, and you have yet to produce any rule, or anything, to support your assertion.
I have supplied several rules, and followed them.


So, when you put your model case on the shelf, and part is hanging over, does that mean it is *not* on the shelf?

When your mom says "don't go on the carpet", and you only put one foot on, does that mean you are not 'really' on it?

When they say 'put the broom on the table', and you do, but it is over the edge, does that mean it isn't on the table?


The fact is, that in the English language (on either side of the ocean) saying something is 'on' something else, *includes* all the way on, and partially on.

Try this, put your land raider 2/3 the way on a table. Then tell someone "I can't find my tank, do you know where it is?" And they will say... "On the table"

Mom: Don't get onto the sofa
Gwar sits down: But my feet aren't on it.


The rule does *not* say 'fully' or 'completely' or 'all the way' or anything like that. It says you must move onto the table. Onto includes partially on, and fully on.

You can't have it both ways, other 'partial' situations:

You can't move onto impassable terrain. So next time you play move partially onto the impassable terrain, and say 'onto means fully onto' and see how that goes.

You can't move 'off of the board', that means you can't move 'fully off the board', and you can't move 'partially off the board'.

See the pattern here?

And yes, this *is* supported by the dictionary.

and then will probably claim that his models can shoot at stuff but cant be shot at in some convoluted rapeage of the English language.

Yknow, if you spend more time actually backing your assertions, and less time fabricating straw man arguments... you might get somewhere. As it is, you have provided nothing to back your assertions, nor anything to refute mine. But don't let me slow you down, keep making things up.

A unit is either on the board or off the board.

If you can find a rule that states that, you will have a point.

I think the rule where it talks about models leaving the board covers being partially on the table.

Yep, if you are falling back, and any model touches the board edge, the entire unit is gone.
But, no one was arguing that.

Can you find a rule that says you can't move partially onto the board?
Can you find a rule that says 'onto' really means 'fully onto'?


Or does it make more sense that a Baneblade can never legally enter from reserves. Or that a Land raider is forced to enter sideways, or forced to move at cruising speed?

coredump wrote:Or does it make more sense that a Baneblade can never legally enter from reserves. Or that a Land raider is forced to enter sideways, or forced to move at cruising speed?

I never said it made sense. Only that that is what the rules say.

Ya know, you still haven't shown us a rule that says you may be half off the board.

-Twiddles thumbs waiting-

And just so you know, the answer is "hanging off the table" not on the table.

Gwar! wrote:

Aduro wrote:Baneblades only move 6", right? Arn't they longer than 6"? Does that mean a Baneblade would never be allowed to move onto the table if it doesn't start on it?

RaW, yes. Same issue occurs with Monoliths not Deep Striking for Example.
Just another example of GW not being able to write.

Monoliths are exactly 6"x6"sq. at their widest point.

Gwar! wrote:You did read the reserve rules right?
See: any (English, not that bastardised version known as American) dictionary.
Anyw

Now that is a funny (albeit not the brightest) statement.


The way I read it, if a model can be placed on the board, and not fall off the board, then it's ... "on" the board.

I often place my Basalisk in a corner so that a small part of the rear of the tank (about a cm on each side of the corner) is sticking over the edges of the table. Are you saying that it is not "on" the table?

How is a model, that is placed on the table and supported only by the table, not "on" the table?

If you can find a rule that states that, you will have a point.

Well coredump, find a rule that states you can have a unit partially off the game board/space/etc.

BoxANT wrote:Now that is a funny (albeit not the brightest) statement.


The way I read it, if a model can be placed on the board, and not fall off the board, then it's ... "on" the board.

I often place my Basalisk in a corner so that a small part of the rear of the tank (about a cm on each side of the corner) is sticking over the edges of the table. Are you saying that it is not "on" the table?

How is a model, that is placed on the table and supported only by the table, not "on" the table?

That's common, and within the spirit of the game. Sure, you're doing it to protect the rear/flank of your vehicle. Fine. few are going to get nitpicky with that. But it's still assumed to be fully 'on' the table. Not hanging off the edge with a few cm's of the front on the board with the rest hanging off.

Gwar- you need to link to this argument for people who call you a TFG.

How would placing a model partially on the table not trigger the conditions of a model reaching a table edge (IE fleeing off table)? It would seem that if you place it partially on (which I am not even sure is legal in the first place) the model would then be removed.

Coredump: Is there anywhere where models being partially on table is even contemplated besides fleeing off table (which doesn't allow a model to be part on or off- as soon as it makes edge contact it is removed)? Every example in the rulebook shows models completely on. Compare this to "within" where only part of a model's base must be in the area (see deepstrike).

Gwar! wrote:Yes there is a section in the fall back that says if they come into contact with the edge of the board they are removed, but of course Cordump will twist it around somehow and claim that moving onto the board means that he only needs the slightest sliver of base on the board, and then will probably claim that his models can shoot at stuff but cant be shot at in some convoluted rapeage of the English language.

of course this is entirely hypothetical of course. I'm sure no one would actually think of doing such a ridiculous thing.

I'm considering asking a mod to lock this thread since all you are doing is trolling and failing to back up your arguments.

This thread is going nowhere.

Gentlemen, a reminder, please follow the Dakka rules on cordiality. Argue the issue with courtesy. If you can't do that don't post in this thread.

Actually, the Land Raider is 8 inches long. Does that mean it has take its 12" move to get in if coming in from reserves to get fully on the board?

In the past my opponents and I have played it that they were considered to have come in at a 6" move if you just fully place the LR on the table? Seemed reasonable at the time.

BlueGiant wrote:Actually, the Land Raider is 8 inches long. Does that mean it has take its 12" move to get in if coming in from reserves to get fully on the board?

In the past my opponents and I have played it that they were considered to have come in at a 6" move if you just fully place the LR on the table? Seemed reasonable at the time.

It is quite reasonable, and I for one agree with it. However, by the letter of the law the Land Raider would either have to advance on 6" then pivot, or move at Cruising speed.

jmurph wrote:How would placing a model partially on the table not trigger the conditions of a model reaching a table edge (IE fleeing off table)?

It wouldn't trigger it because it doesn't meet the conditions of the rule.

Rulebook, page 45: Fall Back wrote:
If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with the table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed, as it scatters and deserts the battle.

Very clearly only applies to units that are falling back. Units not falling back suffer no ill effect for touching the table edge, as there is no rule that says they do.

Coredump: Is there anywhere where models being partially on table is even contemplated besides fleeing off table

Is there anywhere else where it would be relevant?

It's normally assumed that models can't voluntarily move off the table. So at any time other than moving on from the board edge, there would be no reason for the rules to consider being partially on.

I suggest you all read the Adepticon FAQ:

RB.94D.02 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they cannot move on from the table edge without moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles forced to move faster than combat speed on the turn they move onto the table?
A: No, if a vehicle is so large it cannot totally fit onto the table when moving onto the table at combat speed, players are allowed to leave the back end of the vehicle hanging off the edge of the table [clarification]. If players are concerned about their model falling off the table they can mark the spot where it is supposed to be and then temporarily move the model fully onto the table.
Note: While a vehicle is partially ‘hanging off the table’, any access points off the table may not be used and any blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if the blast is technically off the table.

Mike Leon wrote:I suggest you all read the Adepticon FAQ:

RB.94D.02 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they cannot move on from the table edge without moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles forced to move faster than combat speed on the turn they move onto the table?
A: No, if a vehicle is so large it cannot totally fit onto the table when moving onto the table at combat speed, players are allowed to leave the back end of the vehicle hanging off the edge of the table [clarification]. If players are concerned about their model falling off the table they can mark the spot where it is supposed to be and then temporarily move the model fully onto the table.
Note: While a vehicle is partially ‘hanging off the table’, any access points off the table may not be used and any blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if the blast is technically off the table.

That's great, for a cooked up FAQ that has no connection to the actual rules as they are written. It really has no bearing on this discussion, since this is a forum for discussing the rules of GW Warhammer, not Adepticon Warhammer (which are two similar, but distinct games).

Mike Leon wrote:I suggest you all read the Adepticon FAQ:

RB.94D.02 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they cannot move on from the table edge without moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles forced to move faster than combat speed on the turn they move onto the table?
A: No, if a vehicle is so large it cannot totally fit onto the table when moving onto the table at combat speed, players are allowed to leave the back end of the vehicle hanging off the edge of the table [clarification]. If players are concerned about their model falling off the table they can mark the spot where it is supposed to be and then temporarily move the model fully onto the table.
Note: While a vehicle is partially ‘hanging off the table’, any access points off the table may not be used and any blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if the blast is technically off the table.

Oh Emperors bowels not this crap again.

Ill not try to be rude, but I have to say it straight:

THE ADEPTECON FAQ MEANS FETH ALL!

In Case you didnt notice, this is a Rules Debate forum, not "Lets who can make up the best house rules" forum.

That one is here

A large majority of tournaments use that "cooked up FAQ with no connection to the rules" for settling disputes.

So you should probably at least take note of their rulings and possibly research their reasoning.

Mike Leon wrote:A large majority of tournaments use that "cooked up FAQ with no connection to the rules" for settling disputes.

So you should probably at least take note of their rulings and possibly research their reasoning.

Or we could play the game by the rules?

Also, please list these "Big Tournaments" because all the GW run tournaments in Ireland here don't use it, nor do the ones in the UK. I highly doubt GW run ones in the US use it either.

I'm just pointing out some information that may be relevant to the discussion. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, as I see it has become just a flame war of pedantic silliness.

If you want to ignore the INAT FAQ go ahead. It is true that GW tournaments do not use it. It is the private conventions and such that use it here rather than the joke FAQs that GW provides.

Mike Leon wrote:I'm just pointing out some information that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, as I have absoloutly no basis for my argument.

If you want to ignore the INAT FAQ go ahead. It is true that GW tournaments do not use it. It is the Adepticon convention that use it here rather than the joke FAQs that GW provides.

There fixed it for you.

You are the only one trolling here.

I have stated my case (ya know, the one backed up by the rules) and not heard any argument against that didn't involve either making Stuff up, Pointing to an Unofficial FAQ or just calling me TFG.

No rules used in any of those Tournaments are "official" except the ones in the BRB, Codeci, and their FAQ's if you want to be technical about it.

While exaggerated, a lot of tournaments from the largest (Adepticon) to the large (any GT) to your local tournies do use the UKGT or the INAT FAQ's as a guidline for their tournaments. People do this because its very easy to say "This set of FAQ's will be in effect for this tourney" so people know what to expect on a lot of the more common questions and also to save time in game from debating a rule for several minutes.

The persons main point was that going by these equally un-official FAQ's is fairly reasonsable because thats what you will run into more often then not in the "large" tournament scene.

However, GWAR! has a point in that for purposes of this forum, what any FAQ outside of the GW FAQ's say are irrelevant in terms of being "official".

Also just as important is that GW does not make these game systems for tournaments. They make them for fun with your friends. That said, the rules are not as tight as they could be nor is a lot of time spent by them coming up with solid FAQ's and errata. What individuals like John Spencer, UKGT FAQ staff and INAT Staff do is take all the arguments that are made on several forums and decide how their set of FAQ's is going to fall on said issues.

This accomplishes exactly what needs to be accomplished for any tournament that uses said rules. Answers questions that are unanswered by GW. Most of the major arguments have points on both sides and both can sling their interpretation of RAW back and fourth at one another. Who is wrong and who is right? Who knows until GW decides to step in. Until then, you can go back and fourth all you want on the same dead horse issues. But your not solving any problem beside your own boredom and needed vent for nerd rage.

Bible isnt in the term BRB for no reason. What better book to compare to then the one who has people on all different sides claiming to have the right interpretation of what it "clearly says".

EDIT: Also, unless used jest for some reason in an appropriate forum, do not change the content of someones post when quoting it. Even though you pointed it out in your post, it is simply something that is not done in a forum such as this.

I'll just point out that the Adepticon FAQ has the great advantage over the official GW FAQ of existing.

It provides answers to rule queries. You can use it or go on arguing as you like.

MOD ON:

There has been another complaint about a user's behaviour in this thread and I will be PMing them about it.

Since the thread seems to be heading nowhere useful I am going to lock it now.

MOD OFF: