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.

Just put it this way...

When you were a kid and your dad said "Don't step on my grass" and you put one foot in and left one foot out, and when your dad proceeded to pull his belt off you said "I was only partially on, so I was technically off", would he let you go or probably beat you harder for having a smart mouth? I'm just saying...

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: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.

It is 100% NOT OFF THE TABLE if it is partially on.

If 1% of you is on fire you are on fire, despite being only partially on fire

If 1% of you is on fire you are most definitely NOT "not on fire"

You are assuming commutativity when this is not true at all. Stop repeating it as if it were.

You have been repeatedly shown that you can be "on" the table. That is all that is required. Stop making up additional rules, and you may have an argument.

My 2c.:

As long as we're using real-world logic:

p. 67, Disembarking, paragraph 1:
p. 67, Effects of Vehicle Damage on Passengers: Destroyed: wrecked: "...Any models that cannot disembark (as in placed on the table) are destroyed."
p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..."
p. 92, Pitched Battle: "...He then deploys his forces in his half of the table..."
p. 93, Spearhead: "...He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters..."
p. 93, Dawn of War: "...He then can deploy...in his half of the table..."
p. 95, Deep strike mishaps: "...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table... something has gone wrong... roll on the deep strike Mishap table..." (You cannot land a deepstriking model off the table at all.)
(Emphasis mine in all instances, parenthetic phrases are my interpretations.)

It is clear then, that if a model that should be in play cannot be placed completely on the gaming surface, it is destroyed, and that a model must be completely within the borders of the gaming surface to be in play . While this is not explicitly stated in the case of arriving from reserves, it is implied. This is because every other way of getting models onto the board contains a requirement to be in play, having no part out of play. It is ridiculous to assume that you can partially move onto the board in this one instance when there is no explicit statement that you may, and when it is disallowed in every other way of getting models onto the board.

Also, because this is a permissive ruleset, if it doesn't say that you can't, that does Not mean that you can. This means, that because the BGB does not explicitly say that you can deploy models from reserve that straddle the board edge, you may not.

And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.

Cayar wrote:And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.

Missing it, maybe, but not for trying to use it.

"p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..."

By your logic in forcing this to apply, all models that move on from reserves without Deepstriking (and then it's debatable) are destroyed--as they MUST move "into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge".

So yes. It was covered.

Cayar wrote:My 2c.:

As long as we're using real-world logic:

p. 67, Disembarking, paragraph 1:
p. 67, Effects of Vehicle Damage on Passengers: Destroyed: wrecked: "...Any models that cannot disembark (as in placed on the table) are destroyed."

This isnt disembark. And we CAN place them on the table. Next

Cayar wrote:p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..."

Wow, who;d have thought this would have come up after 10 pages. For the 20th time this is NOT falling back, and models are only destroyed because the rules say so.
Logical fallacy. Next.

Cayar wrote:p. 92, Pitched Battle: "...He then deploys his forces in his half of the table..."

In /= on
Next

Cayar wrote:p. 93, Spearhead: "...He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters..."
p. 93, Dawn of War: "...He then can deploy...in his half of the table..."

See above. next

Cayar wrote:p. 95, Deep strike mishaps: "...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table... something has gone wrong... roll on the deep strike Mishap table..." (You cannot land a deepstriking model off the table at all.)
(Emphasis mine in all instances, parenthetic phrases are my interpretations.)

again, special rule for deepstrikes, and only occurs BECAUSE THE DEEPSTRIKE RULES SAY SO.

Cayar wrote:It is clear then, that if a model that should be in play cannot be placed completely on the gaming surface, it is destroyed,

and here is where you go completely and 110% wrong. You have, like every other partially on == destroyed poster, got nothing in the rules to say this. You are, in fact, breaking rules by arbitrarily destroying models.

And mishaps only destroy 1/3rd of the time. So you are deciding to make up rules AND taking the harshest possible way to make up rules.

Cayar wrote:and that a model must be completely within the borders of the gaming surface to be in play . While this is not explicitly stated in the case of arriving from reserves, it is implied. This is because every other way of getting models onto the board contains a requirement to be in play, having no part out of play. It is ridiculous to assume that you can partially move onto the board in this one instance when there is no explicit statement that you may, and when it is disallowed in every other way of getting models onto the board.

Except your quotes do not say that. In fact, they say nothing of the sort. So it, in fact, is rediculous to make the conclusion you have done.

Cayar wrote:Also, because this is a permissive ruleset, if it doesn't say that you can't, that does Not mean that you can. This means, that because the BGB does not explicitly say that you can deploy models from reserve that straddle the board edge, you may not.

Incorrect. You are looking for explicit permission to do X, when general permission Y, which includes X, is given (on not being qualified at all)

Your "logic" here results in you being unable to deploy models in a wood, as there is no explicit permission to deploy models in woods. There is general permission to deploy anywhere IN your half (remember, In /= ON!), but according to your fallacious logic this is not sufficient.

Which is moronic.

Cayar wrote:And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.

Well, if quoting out of context, ignring words (bad in a rules debate, you know) and commiting logical fallacies to try to "prove" your point counts as "using" logic - well, you can guess what happens.

I am not forcing it to apply; I am suggesting that others use it.

I was not making the point that it should apply in the case of arriving from reserves. I was making the point that it applies in a very similar case, one in which all models must be completely on the board in order to be whole and undestroyed.

Even if I was making that point, it's obvious that models are able to move from reserves to a position in the game environment without a problem.

Cayar wrote:
it's obvious that models are able to move from reserves to a position in the game environment without a problem.

This is actually not obvious, or even always correct. Also, it was brought up previously.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This isnt disembark. And we CAN place them on the table. Next

That was my point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cayar wrote:p. 45, Fall Back, paragraph 5: "If any model from a unit that is falling back moves into contact with (or onto or past) a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game and counts as destroyed,..."

Wow, who;d have thought this would have come up after 10 pages. For the 20th time this is NOT falling back, and models are only destroyed because the rules say so.
Logical fallacy. Next.

As I said, I was not meaning for that rule to apply where it was not said to. My point was that the two cases are similar, and should be considered in light of each other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cayar wrote:p. 92, Pitched Battle: "...He then deploys his forces in his half of the table..."
p. 93, Spearhead: "...He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters..."
p. 93, Dawn of War: "...He then can deploy...in his half of the table..."

In /= on
Next

I agree. When you deploy, your forces must be 'in' your deployment zone. Meaning, no part of them may be 'out' of the zone.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cayar wrote:p. 95, Deep strike mishaps: "...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table... something has gone wrong... roll on the deep strike Mishap table..." (You cannot land a deepstriking model off the table at all.)
(Emphasis mine in all instances, parenthetic phrases are my interpretations.)

again, special rule for deepstrikes, and only occurs BECAUSE THE DEEPSTRIKE RULES SAY SO.

I agree. Like the above, I was using it as an example of similar circumstances.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cayar wrote:It is clear then, that if a model that should be in play cannot be placed completely on the gaming surface, it is destroyed,

and here is where you go completely and 110% wrong. You have, like every other partially on == destroyed poster, got nothing in the rules to say this.

This was a generalization. It is definitely true for most, and probably all, of the instances in which it could happen. The reason I said it was that,

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cayar wrote:and that a model must be completely within the borders of the gaming surface to be in play . While this is not explicitly stated in the case of arriving from reserves, it is implied. This is because every other way of getting models onto the board contains a requirement to be in play, having no part out of play. It is ridiculous to assume that you can partially move onto the board in this one instance when there is no explicit statement that you may, and when it is disallowed in every other way of getting models onto the board.

Except your quotes do not say that. In fact, they say nothing of the sort. So it, in fact, is rediculous to make the conclusion you have done.

You fail at reading references. Each instance was chosen precisely because it said that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cayar wrote:And before you go criticizing me for using logic, I would like to point out that I was not the one who started using logic on this thread.

Well, if quoting out of context, ignring words (bad in a rules debate, you know) and commiting logical fallacies to try to "prove" your point counts as "using" logic - well, you can guess what happens.

I made no error. The quotes did not apply to models coming in from reserve (except for the deepstrike rule), they were examples of when being off the table at any point is not allowed. I committed no fallacies; however, I apparently did not explain myself very well. I know (and knew) that those rules did not apply to this, I only wanted them to be considered.


And if you think that you're so righteously right that you will throw my words out the window and insult me after a cursory read at best, you are too hotheaded and opinionated to be here. Go cool down. Please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:This is actually not obvious, or even always correct. Also, it was brought up previously.

Where? When? Why? Back this up please.

Cayar wrote:The quotes did not apply to models coming in from reserve (except for the deepstrike rule), they were examples of when being off the table at any point is not allowed.

Which is why they have no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand.

Cayar wrote:Where? When? Why? Back this up please.

He has been. The whole thread. Do you not read threads before you post in them?

You committed the logical fallacy of assuming that a rule for moving OFF the board has any bearing on a rule for moving ON the board.

Assumption is also a fallacy, and you made a huge assumptive leap in deciding elements are destroyed.

You fail at reading because IN has no relation to ON. They are two words with very, very, very different meanings, especially in this context.

None of your arguments are new, none of your quotes are new, and all have been repeatedly refuted at least two or three times in this thread. Did you actually read all 11 pages, or did you just post a load of quotes and assume you were right?

Cayar wrote:When you deploy, your forces must be 'in' your deployment zone. Meaning, no part of them may be 'out' of the zone.

Page reference?
No one else has found one when (repeatedly) posting this "rule".

The ruler is on the table. If the visible table edge is my deployment zone, that ruler is in my deployment zone.

"Entirely" is not in the rules.

See unit coherency, (dis)embarking, synapse, etc.

If part of the model is in range, the model is in range.
Why use Deepstrike rules or a FAQ query about moving off the board instead of all the rest of the rules saying that partially in range/sight = in range/sight.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote: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.

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.

They must be on the playing surface. agreed?

If they are off the playing surface this would break the rule of being on the playing surface.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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!

Here is your proof:

On does not mean off. If i can point to a part of the base that is off the playing surface, then you have broken a rule about being on the playing surface. If we can not agree that on does not mean off then I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

Quit misquoting us.

Except they are NOT off.

They are on

For the 100th time: while being partially on satisfies "on", the converse is not true for off. You cannot be "off" the table if you are "on" the table, because language doesnt work like that.

Please try again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please try again.

that.

SaintHazard wrote:Quit misquoting us.

how did i misquote you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they are NOT off.

They are on

For the 100th time: while being partially on satisfies "on", the converse is not true for off. You cannot be "off" the table if you are "on" the table, because language doesnt work like that.

Please try again.

so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table?

half a glass of milk is half full not half empty it seems.

Half on and half off are one in the same.

kirsanth wrote:

Cayar wrote:When you deploy, your forces must be 'in' your deployment zone. Meaning, no part of them may be 'out' of the zone.

Page reference?
No one else has found one when (repeatedly) posting this "rule".

The ruler is on the table. If the visible table edge is my deployment zone, that ruler is in my deployment zone.

"Entirely" is not in the rules.

See unit coherency, (dis)embarking, synapse, etc.

If part of the model is in range, the model is in range.
Why use Deepstrike rules or a FAQ query about moving off the board instead of all the rest of the rules saying that partially in range/sight = in range/sight.

P.92 Read pitched battle about deploying in his half of the table.

DeathReaper wrote:so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table?

half a glass of milk is half full not half empty it seems.

Half on and half off are one in the same.

Ok look at it this way you are hanging over a cliff are you holding on to the cliff or not?

DeathReaper wrote:how did i misquote you?

You're mismatching names with quotes. I said what you said Nos said. I have no idea who said what you said I said.

Learn to use forum quotes properly. It's not hard.

Deathreaper - partially on /= off\

Two entirely different words. Again, you are commiting a linquistic error here, to whit you dont understand the difference between on and off. May be worth you actually reading the examples showing you how you are wrong, it might be a good start.

Please try again once you understand the difference between on, off, full and empty.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they are NOT off.

They are on

For the 100th time: while being partially on satisfies "on", the converse is not true for off. You cannot be "off" the table if you are "on" the table, because language doesnt work like that.

Please try again.

Here you are making a fallacious argument which is the compostions fallcy. You are assuming that the whole is on based on a part. Therefore you assumption is right. You have no back up as to say that partially on is on. Show me in the BRB where it says this. Please do it.

Addtionally and again, permissive rule set. Show me where partially on is on.

Furthermore, you have a defined table, you have a defined area of play, if you go outside that area then you are not on it, or in it.

I also want to anwser a problem with WMS, WMS only deals with models in terrain, the board edge is not terrain. WMS has nothing to do with this problem of being partially on and is it in play or not, and is it allowed to do such a thing.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: You are assuming that the whole is on based on a part.

You assume that the whole is mentioned. It is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Was your wife on the car?

DeathReaper+ corrections wrote:so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table? Who care if it is off?

half a glass of milk is half full not half empty it seems. No it is half empty but the point is that is not Empty. If i asked for a glass of water i can be given a full glass, a half full glass, a half empty glass or even a nearlly empty glass. That is beacuse all of those are glasses of water with variable amounts in them.

Half on and half off are one in the same. Yes but no rules care if you are off

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: You are assuming that the whole is on based on a part.

You assume that the whole is mentioned. It is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Was your wife on the car?

No but it is implied in the game when you move the unit/model onto the table. See it doesn't say a part of the unit/model. It says unit/model. Now are we talking about parts of models or model as a whole?

KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.

Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.

Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.

By pointing to page 88 and the area of play. That is what gives us the ability to determine what is on and off the playing sufrace.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - the English language tells you that Partially On is an equivalent term to on.
That is all that is needed.

Rules citation needed to show that the rules care about you being off the table, however. So far noone has managed this.

By pointing to page 88 and the area of play. That is what gives us the ability to determine what is on and off the playing sufrace.

the what now? I have Gaming Surface, Setting Up Terrain, How Much Terrain and Define the Terrain but importantly no mention of "Area of Play"

AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHHhhhh...

@SaintHazard: 1. Thank you for being civil...ish.
2. I thought they were relevant, as they are similar. Isn't it reasonable to consider that similar situations could have similar rules? For heaven's sake, I admitted that they didn't apply. Do you have to rub it in?
3. I thought that I had a good understanding of the topics covered. I admit that I did not read everything posted. Should I have? Should I have wasted an hour of my life in order to put forward my opinion on the subject?

@nosferatu: I am allowed to revise my position, am I not? Did I not say that those rules do not directly apply? May my opinion be dynamic? Will you continue to antagonize me because my original opinion was not in line with yours? Please see above, #2.

@kirsanth: Thank you for being civil. As for your examples:
1. (Ruler on table): Um, I see multiple interpretations. Could you clarify this?
2. (Entirely): If you meant this literally, I'm not going to touch this before you cite. However, I agree that there is no 'entirely' in this case.
3. Unit coherency, range, and the rest have no bearing on this. (I know, coming from me, right?)
4. At no point did I use anything from an FAQ. And I didn't use those rules because, imo, they are dissimilar to the topic at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@kirsanth: I take back my thanks for your non-existent civility.

Cayar wrote:@kirsanth: Thank you for being civil. As for your examples:
1. (Ruler on table): Um, I see multiple interpretations. Could you clarify this?

way back on page 1 ....

kirsanth wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
Where does the rulebook state that? Models are supposed to be on the game board right?

Models cannot move off of the board, but that is not the same thing.

Deadshane1 wrote:Half-on Half-off is not on the gameboard.

So how about this, is the ruler on the table?



I love that image.

@ Tri: Oh. Right. d'oh

I see your side's point. (I think.) That reserves can be moved 'onto' the board, and can be in play though they have not completely crossed the board edge.