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.

This is a poll in reference to the following thread: Difficult terrain....Destroys Vehicle?. I feel that this thread has been argued Ad Nauseam, and I would just like to get the actual opinions of the dakka crowd.

Please do not debate in this thread, only share your opinion. To join the 600+ post debate, go to the linked thread above.

Question: When a vehicle can not move fully onto the table from reserves, what happens?

Here is some prerequisite knowledge needed to answer the question:
Baneblades and Monoliths are measurably more than 6" long.
Baneblades and Monoliths can only move up to 6".
Monoliths can deepstrike, but Baneblades are not able to.

Option A:
The vehicle is destroyed.

You agree with all of the following: baneblades are never allowed to enter from reserve, monoliths must deepstrike, and a failed difficult terrain test will destroy your vehicle if it stops partially off of the board.

Option B:
The vehicle remains where it is, possibly using wobbly model syndrome to mark it's actual location if it is in danger of falling. It functions just like a normal vehicle, and, as long as it's not immobilized, it can keep moving onto the board in the next movement phase.

You agree with all of the following: baneblades are allowed to enter from reserves, monoliths are also allowed to enter from reserves (not just by deepstrike), and a failed difficult terrain test will leave your vehicle immobilized while being partially off of the board edge.

Option C:
The vehicle is moved fully onto the table, even if it exceeds the vehicle's movement speed.

You agree with all of the following: baneblades and monoliths are moved more than 6" when entering from reserves; the minimum required distance to get them on the board edge.

You agree with one of the following:
Difficult terrain is ignored when moving onto the board.
-or-
If immobilized by difficult terrain, you still place the vehicle at the minimum distance to be fully on the board.

Something Else:
Please explain what you think would or should happen. Let us know what you agree with, and what you disagree with.

(Edited for clarity)

I'll take "D";

Vehicles not deployed fully counts as "Destroyed". Monoliths and Baneblades are given special permission to move fully onto the board because GW cannot write good, clear rules if their lives depended on it.

...does this really need a second thread?

SaintHazard wrote:...does this really need a second thread?

No, it doesn't.

That being said, I'll follow the rules. Option B.

Same.

Following the rules has the benefit of consistency and doesnt favour any one side.

I'll follow the rules and say "C".

You ignore rules that may prevent a unit from moving onto the board when entering from reserves.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I'll follow the rules and say "C".

You ignore rules that may prevent a unit from moving onto the board when entering from reserves.

So you really mean "B," right?

What you're saying here is that it's NOT destroyed.

What you're NOT saying (i.e. missing) is that once it's .0000000000000000001mm on the board, it's on the board.

No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

So in the instances where you can't move fully onto the board, even without a Dangerous Terrain test, such as a Necron Monolith or a Baneblade, you break the rules and allow them more than their maximum 6" movement?

I thought you said you were following the rules?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

Incorrect. You only ignore a special rule of that unit. Dangerous Terrain tests are a very very, very general rule. They dont even qualify as a universal Special Rule, they are just a general one. SO you dont ignore it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No, I mean C. Because you move fully onto the board because you don't roll for the Dangerous Terrain.

Incorrect. You only ignore a special rule of that unit. Dangerous Terrain tests are a very very, very general rule. They dont even qualify as a universal Special Rule, they are just a general one. SO you dont ignore it.

Exactly right. Only the unit's own special rules that would prevent it from moving on are ignored.

But I have to vote D because I don't think it's answered in the rules. While there is nothing preventing a model from hanging off the edge of the table, there is also nothing ALLOWING it. And dn't we generally say that if you want to do something, you have to prove you can. So show me a line that specifically states that t amodel can be half off the table. Can't, it doesn't exist.

So, to me, there is no answer to this question. D.

Hooray for rules!

Voted B.

Don - the same as there arent specific rules allowing you to deploy into woods. You can do it because you are given general permission to deploy anywhere in your zone that isnt impassable (etc)

Same here: you are given permission to move onto, and "onto" has not been restricted. Thus, using the power of maths, logic and the English language, and possibly a nija attack panda or 2, being partially or fully on both satisfy the requirement.

So B is following the rules. People may not like it, but...well that really isnt a rules argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just want to know who voted for "destroyed", given that this never appears in the rules apart from when you move off the table due to falling back, and 1/3rd of mishap results....

Yes nos, and half off the table is not in my zone nor is is ON the table. It's just as much off as it is on, so it's neither. There is no specific or general or any statement whatsoever saying that a model may be partially off the table. Period. Nothing. Yes, on the table is not defined. I agree. But if a model is wholly on the table, then there's no argument. If if partially on the table, there is an argument. Just as you can say it's on the table, I can say it's off the table if even a millimeter is hangng off the edge. And we all know that models off table are generally unable to affect the game.

So no, IMO, B does not follow the rules. IMO, there is no answer per the rules.

But the rules dont care about half off, they only care about you bringing it on. So you have a rule stating you must bring it on, partially ON is still ON (ref: that damn ruler) because English tells you this, and so you have satisfied the only rule that matters.

In addition partially off /= off. The language doesnt work that way. IF you are partially supported (definition of on) you cannot be unsupported (definition of off)

The question was...
"When a vehicle can not move fully onto the table from reserves, what happens?"

don_mondo wrote:half off the table is not in my zone

Is irrelevant, deploying your forces in your deployment zone is different from moving onto the table from reserves

don_mondo wrote:half off the table is not ... ON the table.

Well it is...
If your half off you are also half on, if your half on you are still on. Albeit not fully, but being fully on is not what the rules say. The rules say move on, partially on is still on.

Alright, guys/gals, everyone makes a few good points in their favor. I don't really want the argument spilling into this thread.

What I really want is to see how most people play/interpret this rule. I do believe this thread can be a useful observational tool separate from the rules debate.

Then you shouldn't have asked for people who voted other to expalin why..................... But I'll shut up now.

Oh look, option B is winning by a landslide.
























Can we go home now?

don_mondo wrote:Then you shouldn't have asked for people who voted other to expalin why..................... But I'll shut up now.

Ha-ha, I know. I felt that I should let people explain their own version of how they think it works, but I don't want people arguing with them and telling them they are wrong. That is what the other thread is for. This thread is just to see how people play (or think they should play) the game.

SaintHazard wrote:Oh look, option B is winning by a landslide. Can we go home now?

~35 votes and only 2 (~5%) unexplained votes for the "I can take your vehicle away despite the rule saying nothing of the sort just because I think so. Also monoliths and baneblades are automatically destroyed for trying to use a valid deployment method" camp.
I wonder who they're from?

I voted B, because it's the RAW and both entirely playable and fair. No house rules required, though C looks reasonable and I'd agree to it if asked.

C is the easiest way to play it, and it's what my gaming group does.

B makes sense, but adding more Wobbly Model annoyance is the last thing I'm looking for.

don_mondo wrote:Then you shouldn't have asked for people who voted other to expalin why..................... But I'll shut up now.

Why? Vote, give your reason, and let other people give their reason.

How is that a difficult concept?

People, please don't spam the thread.

Thank you.

I take option B, because that's less of a hassle.

I said other, so here's my explanation:

Use Option B. House rule that the vehicle MUST move fully onto the table at its next opportunity, if able. Also, the model must move as far on to the table as possible (for vehicles moving into clear terrain that are simply longer than their maximum move, e.g Baneblade).

I only say this because I personally feel that having a model sit only like 2" on the table is a bit against the spirit of the game, if the model could finish moving fully on. (e.g. sticking your baneblade 1mm on the table to prevent it from getting assaulted).

Xca|iber wrote:I said other, so here's my explanation:

Use Option B. House rule that the vehicle MUST move fully onto the table at its next opportunity, if able. Also, the model must move as far on to the table as possible (for vehicles moving into clear terrain that are simply longer than their maximum move, e.g Baneblade).

I only say this because I personally feel that having a model sit only like 2" on the table is a bit against the spirit of the game, if the model could finish moving fully on. (e.g. sticking your baneblade 1mm on the table to prevent it from getting assaulted).

That doesn't prevent it being assaulted at all...

Chose B.

I haven't read the other thread or even thought there were other ways of going about it. B follows the rules, without house rules, and is simple.

Gwar! wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:I said other, so here's my explanation:

Use Option B. House rule that the vehicle MUST move fully onto the table at its next opportunity, if able. Also, the model must move as far on to the table as possible (for vehicles moving into clear terrain that are simply longer than their maximum move, e.g Baneblade).

I only say this because I personally feel that having a model sit only like 2" on the table is a bit against the spirit of the game, if the model could finish moving fully on. (e.g. sticking your baneblade 1mm on the table to prevent it from getting assaulted).

That doesn't prevent it being assaulted at all...

I meant to keep it out of assault range for an extra turn (or more). If it's fully on the board, attackers need to travel at least 6" less distance to assault, as the vehicle would be >6" further forward than it otherwise would be.

Xca|iber wrote:I meant to keep it out of assault range for an extra turn (or more). If it's fully on the board, attackers need to travel at least 6" less distance to assault, as the vehicle would be >6" further forward than it otherwise would be.

It's no different to putting a vehicle right up to your back edge or sideways along the back edge.

This is what I meant. Obviously, the difference isn't that huge for something smaller, but for a baneblade this (imho) makes a difference: