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.

SaintHazard wrote:1) We can agree that when a vehicle is on the table, it's legal. Please show me the rule that states that part of a vehicle off the table is illegal.

2) Nothing in the rulebook says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. When you measure movement, you measure "from the hull." It's not specific as to where. When you measure range for shooting, you measure from the weapon - you can easily choose not to shoot with a weapon from which you cannot measure range. When you measure shooting AT a vehicle, you measure to the hull. Again, it is not specific as to where. None of these scenarios are in any way hampered by an inability to measure to a portion of the vehicle.

Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

There is plenty in the rulebook that says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. Range is measured from the hull. Pivoting is measured from the centre of the hull. LoS is measured from the gun muzzle. Arc of fire is measured from the mounting point. Assault distance is measured to the base. The facing of vehicles is crucial for determining armour value. Vehicles can get a cover save from 50% terrain coverage -- how can you measure 50% if the vehicle is mostly off the table?

I'm just wondering: would you, or any tournament, actually play like that? ::
I'm fine with this on 3 conditions.
First, that any model only partially on the board also be considered partially in reserve, since the other part must be somewhere and that it cannot be partially in oblivion.
This means that;
Second, that any parts of the models in question beyond the board edge can do nothing, i.e. no shooting guns that are past the edge, because you may not shoot with anything that is in reserve.
Third, since the first paragraph of 'Arriving from reserve' (p.94) says that "it is incorrect to place a model on the board touching the edge and then move it", that any such model may not be moved. This overlaps a little with my second point.
Other than that, I am fine with your point, as there is nothing in the rules to prevent you, though in many similar cases this is completely illegal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, I would think that a model may only be partially on board if the model can balance by itself. Since no one can stay completely still, one would be illegally moving the model(s) if one kept them balanced during any turn that is not one's movement phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You are, in fact, breaking rules by arbitrarily destroying models.

I would rather (not risk a literally broken model) than (play as you suggest).

I'm leaving now, going back to the world of the sane.

Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Partially on is still on.

Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.

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.

Doesnt actually state the words "area of play", and places no requirements on models being entirely within that area in any case - it uses the word on, repeatedly.

In fact because it uses "on" the exact same argument still holds. I think this was covered on page 6, so repeatedly bringing up the same refuted point doesnt really jelp....

Cayer - yes, you should have read the thread. To do otherwise is the equivalent of walking into an ongoing debate, shouting out refuted arguments from 2 days ago and looking smug while everyone wonders what you are doing there. In short, it lacks any form of courtesy and civility.

In other words you were the antagonist first.

And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.

And again fallacous reasoning.

It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.

Cayer - yes, you should have read the thread. To do otherwise is the equivalent of walking into an ongoing debate, shouting out refuted arguments from 2 days ago and looking smug while everyone wonders what you are doing there. In short, it lacks any form of courtesy and civility.

In other words you were the antagonist first.

I was not. I stated my argument with dignity and even temper. It may not have been courteous to bring it up again, but it was polite in manner and language, so far as I know. You're done criticizing my ideas; don't criticize me for having them, especially if I'm willing to change them to suit yours.

Kilkrazy wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:1) We can agree that when a vehicle is on the table, it's legal. Please show me the rule that states that part of a vehicle off the table is illegal.

2) Nothing in the rulebook says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. When you measure movement, you measure "from the hull." It's not specific as to where. When you measure range for shooting, you measure from the weapon - you can easily choose not to shoot with a weapon from which you cannot measure range. When you measure shooting AT a vehicle, you measure to the hull. Again, it is not specific as to where. None of these scenarios are in any way hampered by an inability to measure to a portion of the vehicle.

Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

There is plenty in the rulebook that says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. Range is measured from the hull. Pivoting is measured from the centre of the hull. LoS is measured from the gun muzzle. Arc of fire is measured from the mounting point. Assault distance is measured to the base. The facing of vehicles is crucial for determining armour value. Vehicles can get a cover save from 50% terrain coverage -- how can you measure 50% if the vehicle is mostly off the table?

Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table? Well nothing says they must be on the table. If they must be on the table then you can't have things in reserve since they're all off the table. As for measuring it is there just measure to the thing (using WMS rules you place and hold it so you can measure)

(note WMS (wobbly model syndrome) can be found on page 13)

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Partially on is still on.

Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.

Whilst I disagree with that, assuming it the sake of the argument, are you happy to play with all the complications I have pointed out?

How do you think it will work in practice?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.

And again fallacous reasoning.

It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.

There is nothing stating you can deploy in woods, yet you can do so.

Again, and for the final time: the English language allows you to satisfy they requirement to move "onto" by moving partially on(to). This is how language works, is non fallacious, and follows the time honoured tradition of permission to do general X allows you to do specific action Y which is a subset of X

moving partially on is a part of moving on, same as deploying in woods (in your half) is a part of deploying anywhere in your half. Your argument is that youc annot deploy in woods, which is incorrect.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Partially on is still on.

Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.

Whilst I disagree with that, assuming it the sake of the argument, are you happy to play with all the complications I have pointed out?

How do you think it will work in practice?

What complications? Having a mm on the table and the rest off? That's not a complication, that's what the rules say.

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?
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.

1. If it is not on the table, what is holding it up? "Partially" and "Fully" are not in the question any more than they are in the rules.

2. Exactly.

3. Then neither do Deepstrike Mishaps, Moving OFF of the table, Falling Back, the Area of play, nor any other set of rules that relate.

4. The FAQ is the part that states that edge of the board is edge of the world and it is disallowed movement.

As for civility. . .if you say so, I am civil enough to read everyone's responses in the whole thread before posting. I even tried to find a new example instead of regugitating things people still disagre with.
Regardless, if you think I am implying it was your wife, I would civilly suggest a break from the internet for a bit?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

The one where it says you move onto the table. It doesn't say fully on, so it doesn't mean fully on.

Partially on is still on.

Therefore, you have permission to be partially on.

Whilst I disagree with that, assuming it the sake of the argument, are you happy to play with all the complications I have pointed out?

How do you think it will work in practice?

You mark were the model is then you place the model safely on the table. When you need to measure from or to the model repace it and hold while the measurement is taken. Then place the mode back safely on the board.

Kilkrazy wrote:Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

Where do you measure a unit's location to?

Specifically.

Kilkrazy wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:1) We can agree that when a vehicle is on the table, it's legal. Please show me the rule that states that part of a vehicle off the table is illegal.

2) Nothing in the rulebook says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. When you measure movement, you measure "from the hull." It's not specific as to where. When you measure range for shooting, you measure from the weapon - you can easily choose not to shoot with a weapon from which you cannot measure range. When you measure shooting AT a vehicle, you measure to the hull. Again, it is not specific as to where. None of these scenarios are in any way hampered by an inability to measure to a portion of the vehicle.

Where is the rule that says a unit can be partly off the table?

There is plenty in the rulebook that says you have to measure from certain parts of the vehicle. Range is measured from the hull. Pivoting is measured from the centre of the hull. LoS is measured from the gun muzzle. Arc of fire is measured from the mounting point. Assault distance is measured to the base. The facing of vehicles is crucial for determining armour value. Vehicles can get a cover save from 50% terrain coverage -- how can you measure 50% if the vehicle is mostly off the table?

If you'll actually read my posts instead of conveniently ignoring everything but the part that you can use to try to refute my points...
1) I already addressed weapons. You fire the ones from which you can measure range. Can't measure range? Can't fire.
2) I already addressed facings. Can't hit rear armor? Great, you couldn't even if it was ON the table, since you can't fire from OFF the table.
3) I didn't address cover, but that couldn't be simpler. Is 50% of the vehicle in cover? More than 50% of the vehicle is off the table, therefore more than 50% of the vehicle is "not in cover." No cover save can be claimed.

Everything else I already addressed.

Yes but doesn't the difficult terrain test for vehicles say that if the test is failed, the vehicle stops outside the terrain (I.e off the table in this case)?


Arghh ignore this, stupid phone. ...

Oh, page 94 reserves clearly specifies that the unit can move on up to its maximum movement. Seems clear that that can mean as much or as little of the model as desired.

Which, if you go back to oooh page 2, was pointed out and I believe I said this ISNT covered in the rules - however destroying the vehicle certainly is NOT in the rules, and seems harsh.

Simply not placing terrain over the edge (the only practical way for it to be exactly flush to the edge) seems the easiest way to resolve this. Then you will, at worst, simply place the tank on the edge of the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:And yet there is nothing saying you can be partially on the table.

And again fallacous reasoning.

It niether says entirely on, or partly on. So to assume that it means one thing and not the other is also wrong.

There is nothing stating you can deploy in woods, yet you can do so.

Actually deploying has nothing to do with this (red haring) fallacous arguement.

Again, and for the final time: the English language allows you to satisfy they requirement to move "onto" by moving partially on(to). This is how language works, is non fallacious, and follows the time honoured tradition of permission to do general X allows you to do specific action Y which is a subset of X

We are not talking about what the english language allows we are talking about what the rules allow.

moving partially on is a part of moving on, same as deploying in woods (in your half) is a part of deploying anywhere in your half. Your argument is that youc annot deploy in woods, which is incorrect.

Since it is your argument about not being able to deploy in woods and not mine I will thank you not to contribute that to me. Secondly, I have on many occasions tried to discuss this in a polite manner, and not infered on many occasions what you might be saying. I can not say the same for you. You repeatedly attack a person and thier comprihenson of many things and yet that in of itself is also fallacous.(and if I am not mistaken against the forum rules.

You are determining rules based on what is implied from you understanding, we have gone from RAW to RAI in this case. At that point there is no discussing anything with you as you have set your mind to being right to all other exclusions. Addtionaly, I thought you were done two pages ago. Have a nice day!

P.S. I can also point out fallacous arguments!

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.

Tri wrote:

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

Here is your rules citation nos.

The rule that states games are played ON the 6' by 4' table. It says you have to be on the table, and not off the table, tyvm.

This states you need to be on, not partially on. On in this reference is inclusive of the whole base/model.

you are allowed to be on the table, no rules state you can be partially on/off the table.

and please stop with the on fire not on fire/hanging on a cliff/half on and half off a car, they are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Was your wife on the car?

No . . .

Quaint. That is why the image has a title.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Now are we talking about parts of models or model as a whole?

Glad you finally noticed the issue. The rules do not specify; only the people saying the models have to be 100% on the table are doing that.
Then they are ALSO adding a rule saying the vehicle is destroyed for not complying with a rule that is not written.

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Was your wife on the car?

No . . .

Quaint. That is why the image has a title.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Now are we talking about parts of models or model as a whole?

Glad you finally noticed the issue. The rules do not specify; only the people saying the models have to be 100% on the table are doing that.
Then they are ALSO adding a rule saying the vehicle is destroyed for not complying with a rule that is not written.

Actually it is the people who are saying that only a part of the model needs to be on the playing area they were the first one's iirc. At this point I would like to point out that on multiple occasions I have stated I am not for it being destroyed. I have said it is not a valid area for it to be on/in therefore it is not a a part of the game legally. You play with whole models, unless agreed upon before hand. As for having a defined area of play it is in the first sentence of that paragraph, the game is designed to be played on a 6x4 foot area. See there that tells you where the playing area ends. If it is 6 feet 1 inch, that is not in the playing area, if it was 4 feet 5 inches, not in the playing area.

Cheers!

The fact is the book says it can be on the table without specifying that it can't be partially on the table. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the naysayers assuming a vehicle is destroyed in this situation to provide a rules excerpt. As they have been unable to do so thus far I think we can assume RAW the tank is fine partially on the table. Anything else is spirit of the game.

@K-P: So by your logic models in reserves can never come on... classy.

Gwar! wrote:@K-P: So by your logic models in reserves can never come on... classy.

No, again I did not say that. Niether is that what I am thinking.................

They have the rules there saying specific instances where it is allowed. Seeing how the BRB tells you how to bring them on measure from the edge up to thier full movement (unless something prevents them from doing so like becoming immoblized), in other words you have a choice of how far you can bring in those units, but it must be a legal move. Seeings how there is a clearly defined are and the game was designed to be played in/on a specific area, not being inside that area is not a legal move.

Please for the sake of my sanity do not attribute any ideas that are yours, or circumstances you might think of, to me. I will do the same and everyone will get along.

Probably a bit late now, but could we get some sort of poll on this thread? So we can have a clear "dakka" opinion?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Seeings how there is a clearly defined are and the game was designed to be played in/on a specific area, not being inside that area is not a legal move.

Please for the sake of my sanity do not attribute any ideas that are yours, or circumstances you might think of, to me. I will do the same and everyone will get along.

+1 to the last bit.
The first. . .questionable.
What you wrote, I think everyone agrees with. Unfortunately, you wrote it like the book and did not write "not being 100% inside that area is not a legal move".

Part of a model's base within 2" means the model is within 2".

Also, to recap:

kirsanth wrote:No rules back "it's destroyed" camp any more than anything else. Full stop.

Rules do not cover what happens when a unit cannot move onto the table--if you think otherwise, please, please post a page number.

Playing vs. someone that has something happen outside of the rules is not a reason to destroy the unit that caused the issue.

If it were my unit, sure, I would even suggest it as viable.

So RAW = nothing.
RAI = less than RAW.
How I would play it = less advantageous to MYSELF.

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Seeings how there is a clearly defined are and the game was designed to be played in/on a specific area, not being inside that area is not a legal move.

Please for the sake of my sanity do not attribute any ideas that are yours, or circumstances you might think of, to me. I will do the same and everyone will get along.

+1 to the last bit.
The first. . .questionable.
What you wrote, I think everyone agrees with. Unfortunately, you wrote it like the book and did not write "not being 100% inside that area is not a legal move".

Part of a model's base within 2" means the model is within 2"

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I would also like to point out that with a defined playing area it does limit where things can go/be and where whatever your talking about is on/in.

Agreed.
I do not think it is as cut and dry as you seem to be stating, though.

If a vehicle gets immobilized moving onto the board, with only part of its hull on the table, what happens?

There are 3 answers I have seen.

1) Vehicle Destroyed. (Why?)

2) Vehicle remains where it was, usually via WMS. (/shrug)

3) The game breaks! (This is a non-answer)


Am I missing anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Problem with that example is that, this is about a specific rule that says you must be within 2" of another model in the unit. So it has no bearing on whether or not a model can be placed, moved onto, or whatever on the table edge, also known as the playing surface.

Also, this section is simply titled "Measuring Distances", which is why I referenced it.

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: I would also like to point out that with a defined playing area it does limit where things can go/be and where whatever your talking about is on/in.

Agreed.
I do not think it is as cut and dry as you seem to be stating, though.

If a vehicle gets immobilized moving onto the board, with only part of its hull on the table, what happens?

There are 3 answers I have seen.

1) Vehicle Destroyed. (Why?)

2) Vehicle remains where it was, usually via WMS. (/shrug)

3) The game breaks! (This is a non-answer)


Am I missing anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Problem with that example is that, this is about a specific rule that says you must be within 2" of another model in the unit. So it has no bearing on whether or not a model can be placed, moved onto, or whatever on the table edge, also known as the playing surface.

Also, this section is simply titled "Measuring Distances", which is why I referenced it.

1) I am okay with!
2) WMS does not apply here since the vehicle stopsoutside of terrain, and WMS only applies to models in terrain.
3) agreed!
ooooooo I have a fourth one! wait a second let me think!!! Oh and it is a suggestion!
4) placing a model that is not within the parameters of the placing surface is not allowed there, the vehicle is forfiet? (I know it sounds like destroyed but isn't) In other words they have been deployed to another battle area. Due to you not being able to put them in the field of play legally, doesn't count against you, doesn't help you.

2) WMS does not apply here since the vehicle stopsoutside of terrain, and WMS only applies to models in terrain

This is false. I thought this at first, however it does only say 'terrain.' This includes clear terrain which includes the entire board (the majority of the table).

so a model half on and half off the table is not off the table? Who care if it is off?

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

Um..considering that the argument is that partially on is on, most of us care if you are on. Based on pages 88 and whichever one has the reserves rule, you do have to be on the table (though partially on satisfies this). If you meant 'partially off' you probably should specify so, & sorry for confusing it.

Whereas I acknowledge I agree with Ail-Shan, I also feel that Kapitalist-Pig's last post is confusing issues--I assume it's an accident, apologies if that is incorrect.

1) We know you think it is okay, yet no rule back it. Could you point out why it is valid? With a page reference if all is well--this is a response out of spite for the rules as far as I can tell.

2)So clear terrain is not terrain? Page 13 disagrees.

3) Great! I may quote that later.

4) This is destroyed in 2/3 of games, and almost as bad (good?) in the remaining 1/3. Removing a model and any potentially embarked models is very much a penalty to the player whose models they are without rules backing it. At all.