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.

i put something else as i think your options are badly worded

things that are longer/wider then 6"(because if something was 7"long but only 5" wide i'd bring it on sideways) then they would move on as much as was possible

but if something was immobilised by difficult terrain that was FLUSH with the board edge then i believe it would be immobilised outside of the field of play and not enter at all

move the baneblade 6 inch and at the end of its move you can still turn it sideways?

doesnt work for the mono thou...

I say since you can't target something OFF the board if I am not ON the board more than 50% I get a Cover save!!

General_Chaos wrote:I say since you can't target something OFF the board if I am not ON the board more than 50% I get a Cover save!!

This is not the thread to argue the rules in, it's merely seeing how people play.

'B'

Title is a bit funny - having one 'sides' position stated as fact but, eh.

Rephistorch wrote:This is not the thread to argue the rules in, it's merely seeing how people play.

Oh it's not... just watch

I'd like it to be C, but B is the fairest/most RAW interpretation and the one we'd play it by in an average encounter.

All models are partially-on-the-table at some point during their move from reserves onto the board. They don't teleport 6" forwards when they run on, they move through adjacent spaces.

There's no text to support Rule A, but of course people can house rule anything that feels good to their group.

I pick 'A'. Kill it. If you don't like it, don't keep your gigantic tank in reserves. No other unit is allowed to be half-off of a table edge. Just because a baneblade is expensive doesn't make it any more exempt from that rule. If a unit is passed the table edge it is removed from play.

With the sole exception of people voting "Other", is there any reason whatsoever for anyone voting A/B/C to post their justification for their vote, in addition to simply voting? I'd think that after 22 pages any argument that could have been made would be made.

Ouze wrote:With the sole exception of people voting "Other", is there any reason whatsoever for anyone voting A/B/C to post their justification for their vote, in addition to simply voting? I'd think that after 22 pages any argument that could have been made would be made.

Well, I hadn't heard this one before:

Guitardian wrote:
I pick 'A'. Kill it. If you don't like it, don't keep your gigantic tank in reserves. No other unit is allowed to be half-off of a table edge. Just because a baneblade is expensive doesn't make it any more exempt from that rule. If a unit is passed the table edge it is removed from play.

Considering some instances where it's required to move models in from the board edge, this seems unreasonable to me. But, hey, I'm sure allowances can be made... or not.

That's different and you know it. They come onto the table measuring from the table edge, they don't come in from half-way across their base.

NO, they come on measuring from the front of their base at the edge of the board. At some point they ARE part on the board.
Its just a good job that the rules dont actually support your position Guitardian.

Additionally: Baneblades (and other superheavies) can be used in Speahead, but suffer a hit if deployed. Your interpretation would be that you either have it destroyed or suffer a hit. Hardly fair now is it?
You also didnt address that the Monolith suffers the same problems.

B.

I'm given permission (actually, obligation) to put my model down on the table after I finish the movement when I arrive from reserves. I'm NOT given permission to take it out of play, return it to reserves, treat it as casualty, or anything like it. Because I'm not given permission to do that, I may not do that.

As for shooting on it, use true line of sight and normal shooting rules. I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict (unless you try to charge it, in which case you can't wrap around the tank very much).

Mahtamori wrote:I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict (unless you try to charge it, in which case you can't wrap around the tank very much).

Well, this sounds like a refreshing new way to play! I look forward to, in my next game, having a whirlwind battery off the board in reserve shooting onto the board. After all, there is nothing on page 94 (reserves) which says I can't do that. Of course, I have to be careful, because he can also destroy my units in reserve! As a matter of fact, if he put them close enough to my side, my opponent's units in reserve (off the board) will assault my off-board reserve units! And if he does that, I can't stop him, because nothing in the rulebook says he can't do that.

In the first paragraph, you presume a restrictive ruleset - unless it specifically says you can, you can't. In the second paragraph, you presume a permissive ruleset - you can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the rules. Which is it?

You are intentionally misinterpreting what I write. Just because the rules do not provide a penalty for if a model is off the table, they also do not provide a means to get there outside of the vehicle failing to move on to the table when arriving from reserves - it's not a matter of choice.

You're apparently seriously arguing that you're allowed to target things that are not on the board. Yes, I'm intentionally misrepresenting what you wrote, because what you theorize - that unless the rules expressly forbid it, you can do it - completely breaks the game.

Ouze wrote:You're apparently seriously arguing that you're allowed to target things that are not on the board. Yes, I'm intentionally misrepresenting what you wrote, because what you theorize - that unless the rules expressly forbid it, you can do it - completely breaks the game.

There's a major difference between "It doesn't say I can't so I can" and "I can and it doesn't say I can't".

This ain't Air Bud.

If it doesn't say you may, you may not.

Lol, poll is horribly skewed. Learn to write a non bias poll.

People don't event think about the complications. Oh look, my tank is .01" on the board. It is now immune to blast weapons.

There would also be no way to setup an outflank defense. There will always be that tiny space for you to come on and go straight to assault.

I especially like it when the original poster came in and declared that he was right and the controversy was over because a majority out of like 90 people agreed with him...

Great statistical proof there.


Anyways, I am pretty sure the rule says to move the model onto the table. NOT move part of the model onto the table.

Therefore I went with what the rules say and voted A.

CptZach wrote:Lol, poll is horribly skewed. Learn to write a non bias poll.

I especially like it when the original poster came in and declared that he was right and the controversy was over because a majority out of like 90 people agreed with him...

Great statistical proof there.

He did?
...where?

I went with what the rules say and voted A.

The rules say that the vehicle "is destroyed"? ...where?

Some of these posts honestly just seem... nonsensical.

I like how in CptZach's version of the rules, you can add qualifiers where none previously existed.

Tell you what, from now on, when YOU'RE shooting, you need to be able to draw LOS and range on my ENTIRE unit of infantry, because I felt like adding a qualifier there. And from now on, your templates and blast markers have to ENTIRELY cover the base of an infantry model for it to count as a hit. And while we're at it, you can't assault unless your base is ENTIRELY in contact with my base - so basically, if you can't stack your bases on top of mine, you can't assault me, ever. And your 24" range on your storm bolter needs to ENTIRELY cover whatever you're shooting at, so if the model you're shooting at isn't 24" long and right up against your base, you can't shoot them.

...wanna stop adding arbitrary qualifiers now? 'Cause I can sit here and do this all day.

Gorkamorka wrote:There's a major difference between "It doesn't say I can't so I can" and "I can and it doesn't say I can't".

Yes, that is what I am trying to point out, with Mahtamori's post 3 or 4 back (so not sure why you're quoting me). He states that the vehicle cannot be destroyed because no rule dictates that he must. No rule = not allowed. He then immediately says that he can't find any rules saying he's not allowed to target anything off the board. No rule forbidding = allowed.

If we decide to go with the latter rule, then the game quickly becomes unplayable. Specifically, if as Mahtamori says, "I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict that rather clearly means that if you can shoot things of the board, conversely, you can shoot stuff that's in reserve - right? I read page 94, twice - nothing says things in reserve cannot fire. So, if I have something long range in reserve, like whatever that ridiculous IG death missile is - no reason I can't fire it while it's still in reserve on the first turn, right? See how ludicrous this interpretation immediately becomes?

Gorkamorka wrote:

CptZach wrote:Lol, poll is horribly skewed. Learn to write a non bias poll.

I especially like it when the original poster came in and declared that he was right and the controversy was over because a majority out of like 90 people agreed with him...

Great statistical proof there.

He did?
...where?

Thanks, I was pretty sure I didn't come out and say that I was right in this thread. While I'm sure what I believe can be inferred by some of my posts I haven't actually said which option I have selected, and I haven't bragged that what I think may or may not be "in the lead".

I say B. You can even justify it. The vehicle hasn't literally moved on, it has been dropped, teleported, magically appeared out of thin air . . . whatever. And because it is so close to the base of operations it doesn't scatter =D

Done, done, and done . . .

Oshova

Ouze wrote:
Yes, that is what I am trying to point out, with Mahtamori's post 3 or 4 back (so not sure why you're quoting me). He states that the vehicle cannot be destroyed because no rule dictates that he must. No rule = not allowed. He then immediately says that he can't find any rules saying he's not allowed to target anything off the board. No rule forbidding = allowed.

If we decide to go with the latter rule, then the game quickly becomes unplayable. Specifically, if as Mahtamori says, "I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict that rather clearly means that if you can shoot things of the board, conversely, you can shoot stuff that's in reserve - right? I read page 94, twice - nothing says things in reserve cannot fire. So, if I have something long range in reserve, like whatever that ridiculous IG death missile is - no reason I can't fire it while it's still in reserve on the first turn, right? See how ludicrous this interpretation immediately becomes?

I really don't want to start the argument up in this thread again... suffice it to say that he's right (if a bit unspecific) and there's nothing preventing you from measuring to his partially on the board tank that is perfectly in play after arriving from reserves.
There's plenty preventing you from measuring from your units that have not been deployed, are still in reserves, have no defined off-board position, and have not "become available" via arriving.

If you don't want to restart the argument, then what is the point of your post?

Off-topic, I'm having some serious issues not imagining The Janitor writing all of Gorkamorka's posts.

Or, frankly, any comments in this thread at all other then "other" as proscribed by the poll. Not that I'm hellbent on preventing anyone from expressing themselves, which is kind of the whole point of Dakka - but I don't see how this could possibly end any differently then the last one did - as a slow moving trainwreck.

But Ouze . . . slow moving trainwrecks are fun =D

But I understand your point, that any interpretaion in the first 3 could be correct . . . but really B is the most true ruleswise.

Oshova

B for all the reasons everyone posted about choosing A, C, and most of the posts regarding Other.