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.

WEll, there is RaW: "on" can be satisifed by the model being placed partially on, as it is still "on". Without any other requirements you can place the model 0.0000001mm "on" the table and the rules permit this - the English language backing you up here

You can't even really argue intent here as there aren't really any clues as to what they wanted vehicles to do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:WEll, there is RaW: "on" can be satisifed by the model being placed partially on, as it is still "on". Without any other requirements you can place the model 0.0000001mm "on" the table and the rules permit this - the English language backing you up here

You can't even really argue intent here as there aren't really any clues as to what they wanted vehicles to do.

Really when did the edge of the table stop being the end of the world?

That quote was refering to models moving OFF, not models moving ON.

/nitpick.

He coulda moved on and not pivoted competely to the side to make it. I do it all the time with my LR's (come in 6 by pivoting slightly so I'm not hanging over).

I suppose *sigh* is the best reference you could come up with nosfetau? I mean not one page number? Okay how about any diagram or picture showing a model partially off? No? Not one? Then stop being so condescending and go find one!

Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off. No partial anything just on. Nowhere in the rulebook does it contemplate models being partially "on". So where are you getting that they can be?

Referring to casual English is often problematic in a rules discussion since we are usually dealing with defined terms in context of the rules universe.

Gwar: The rules say the model must be on the table. You ask if a board balanced on the table is on or off. This is a false dilemma. The answer is, of course neither. It is partially on and partially off. For abbreviation, we generally say it is on, because it didn't fall. Yet that in no way helps us in a rules context.

Every single depiction of a model in the rulebook shows models wholly on the table. Thus we know that this is legal and allowed. No models are shown partially on, nor do the rules say anywhere that this partial definition is included as being "on". Since this is permissive rules set, we can only do what the rules say we may. Since we are not anywhere told we may have models "partially on", it seems the stronger position that they may not. Assuming more seems to go beyond what the rules provide.

Kirsanth: But still gives some insight into how the writers view the game setup and table limits.

jmurph wrote:Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off.

Nor does it say "Completely on" or "Entirely on". "On" can be applied to anything that has even 1 Atom on the table Surface.

It's all GW's fault that they didnt make it six inches long. And there should be a rule that any conversion models, tanks, or otherwise, cannot exceed a diameter or length of six inches! This also means that it will fit neatly on the roads they sell...

Correct, but it can equally be said to be off the table by the same logic. Do you not see a problem there?

Gwar! wrote:

jmurph wrote:Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off.

Nor does it say "Completely on" or "Entirely on". "On" can be applied to anything that has even 1 Atom on the table Surface.

Which would put a few problems into the balance perspective, and your beautifully painted Land Raider comes crashing to the ground.
Sorry, I'll shut up now.

jmurph wrote:Correct, but it can equally be said to be off the table by the same logic. Do you not see a problem there?

Except, it isn't off, because it is on the table...

jmurph wrote:I suppose *sigh* is the best reference you could come up with nosfetau? I mean not one page number? Okay how about any diagram or picture showing a model partially off? No? Not one? Then stop being so condescending and go find one!

Well, how about:

When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling players own....

page 94, "Arriving from Reserve"

So, I ask again - where is "onto" qualified? What, it isn't? Does that mean you need to provide a rules quote to *gasp* actually backup what you are saying? Like I had already done and you ignored?

Unlike you I've been through this argument before: you should perhaps search. On both here and 'Seer "onto" can be shown to be completely fulfilled by moving the model so it is touching the table surface. So, I ask again: I have shown MY permission, how about you show the restriction? A page number and paragraph would be good. Or you could waffle on about " moving off" being a bit similar to "moving on" or that "partially on" isnt actually "on" without any basis for doing so.

jmurph wrote:
Yes it says move "on". Not partially on. On. Not partially off. No partial anything just on. Nowhere in the rulebook does it contemplate models being partially "on". So where are you getting that they can be?

Because the rule for moving on from reserve says so. Quite a simple concept that I'm not sure you've grasped just yet. "onto" is not qualified, therefore if you fulfill the criteria you have got permission. Does it say "fully" onto? No? Well that means that partially is fine.

Everything else from that quote isnt actually an argument about rules by the way: I have shown where it can be, YOU have to show it cannot be.

Actually, you have to show two things:
1) Partially on = on
and
2) Permission for a model to be partially off the table

See here's the issue: even if you take a broad view of onto, you still need to have permission to have the model off the table. Off doesn't say completely either. So, by a broad definition, the model is both on and off the table. Fun, huh? Yet I have yet to see anything allowing you to keep the model off the table.

And I'm not sure you can even get that far. Yes, it can be shown that onto *may* include partially on. But that is far from definitive.

Gwar: You assume too much. Something may be both on and off the table if we are taking a view that includes partially.

jmurph wrote:
Gwar: You assume too much. Something may be both on and off the table if we are taking a view that includes partially.

Therein lies the rub.

no, landraiders and other large vehicles cant move on from reserve.

If something is On, even partially, it cannot be off. They are Mutually Exclusive.

Nosferatu has gone and given rule quotes and proof for his argument. Why can you not do the same?

Why is that Gwar? Does it make a difference if the majority of the model is off? Or are you just assuming off is a negative state that any partial "on"ness may negate?

And I offer every diagram and picture in the book showing models wholly on. Fair enough?

jmurph wrote:Actually, you have to show two things:
1) Partially on = on

Done - the English Language agrees with me, it disagrees with you. Given the rulebook is written in English then I suggest you find a better argument than "prove English to me"

So you now need to prove the contrary. Page numbers please. for the 5th (?) time.

jmurph wrote:
and
2) Permission for a model to be partially off the table

Not needed as the model is not moving OFF the table. How many times do you need to be told that moving off the table is different to moving on? In fact hwo about you prove they are the same, and then we can perhaps move on? Again smoe page numbers would be useful.

Really, how about you actually provide some rules quotes to back up your argument? I've shown permission, which is all I need to do.

Additionally: the reserves rules do not give a flying fig about the model being partially off the table: it only requires that the model be "on" the table. Which I've shown can be satisfied perfectly well.

page 94, "Arriving from Reserve"

I think that is the crux of the argument, no?

So your position is that the model may be partially off the table (which by the same logic that partially=on also means it is off the table) because the rules don't say you can't?

I see a problem here....

The reserves actually mention large vehicles, and it says they need to move as if they were positioned just off the table the previous turn and then moved as normal.

(See:Monolith > 6"? issues)

No, Partially On cannot be in any way logically conceived as off the table.

jmurph wrote:(which by the same logic that partially=on also means it is PARTIALLY off the table)

Solved your problem.

Gwar! wrote:No, Partially On cannot be in any way logically conceived as off the table.

So partially on cannot be conceived as partially off as well? And since we are including partially in the respective categorizations, partially off = off just as partially on = on.

It's true...although the whole subject is touchy: if someone is hanging off a cliff, then their fingers are still on, but the saying goes "hanging OFF"

And they are hanging on

True. This whole business is getting tiresome.

jmurph wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, Partially On cannot be in any way logically conceived as off the table.

So partially on cannot be conceived as partially off as well? And since we are including partially in the respective categorizations, partially off = off just as partially on = on.

And the rules still don't care that the model is off as well as on: it just requires you move "onto". Which you have done.

So, still waiting on your rules quotes - do you have any?

All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world ;-)

Rules quote? For what? Saying that a model may not be off table? No, I was looking for one that allowed a model to be partially off table. Didn't find it.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. The positions seem to be as follows:

1) A vehicle moving on may be placed partially on table. The rules do not say that a model cannot be placed partially off of the table and any portion of the model on the table satisfies the requirement for moving "onto" the table. (Expansive view)

2) A vehicle must be placed fully on the table or not at all. Every instance depicted in the rulebook shows models wholly on and no rule allows the model to be partially off the table. (Restrictive view)

Readers are free to evaluate the value of each position.

So images that do NOT appear are used as proof?

Interesting.

You need to provide rules quotes to back up your view that the model must be fully on(to) the table. Like you';ve been asked to since the start, and you have yet to do.

Point 2) has irrelevancies in it: the diagrams cannot by themselves show that partially on is not allowed, unless they specifically address the point. As they don't they don't add anything to the actual rules as written argument.

The model must move onto the table. Therefore it cannot still be off the table. Therefore a model that satisfies both "is on the the table" and "is off the table" does not meet the reserve requirements.