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.

[/b][/i][/u]

kirsanth wrote: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.

What I meant was I agree with your statment. Not that I agree with the point of view. Or in other words yes please tell me why.

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

So then your arguement is that is should not be on the table at all? I think I understand what your saying but want to hear it from you. Addtionally, the table edge is not terrain.

3) Great! I may quote that later.

Fine with this seeing how it probably will not matter later and no one wants the game to break.

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.

I understand thats what it looks like but to insist otherwise feels to me like bending the rules for your bonehead mistake.

Again it was a suggestion, although a really bad one now that I have had time to sit down and re-read it.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

Stop talking about "the rules". I have already said that I don't accept your interpretation of the rules but I wish to explore the implications if we take them to be correct.

Those complications that I mentioned that I mentioned earlier.

Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.

What prevents you from doing any of those things entirely normally?

Additionally, the table edge is not terrain

The table itself is. If you are playing on a floor with marker lines/tape for your boundary, you don't even need to invoke WMS. But since the table is in the air, and the table is terrain (clear terrain), WMS, annoyingly, applies.

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?

Range would be measured to the front of the vehicle (which is still the hull), and that's likely the shortest distance from gun to tank anyway. Pivoting is around the center of the hull (though since you move more off the table by pivoting it could be argued that you are moving off the table). Measuring from the gun will only have possible issues if the gun is off the table. Otherwise it should be fine. And again, based on position the front of the tank will be the closest to anything on the table. Also the 50% terrain coverage only applies to the armor facing you are shooting at (so 50% of the front armor has to be covered if you're shooting at front armor).

I don't really see major issues, other than if you were to argue that the guns that are off the table can't shoot, that pivoting while the center is off the table is illegal (not really a problem though entirely logical), and that armor facing can only be determined by the parts of the model that are on the table (very wide front arc). Of course the first and last both are then breaking up the model into pieces, which logically shouldn't be done as it is still one model (and still, if part of the model is on the table the one model is on the table).


As for the poll idea, it should be in 2 parts. What do the rules say (strictly RAW) and how would you play it (spirit of the game idea).

Gorkamorka wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.

What prevents you from doing any of those things entirely normally?

The fact that there is no terrain off the edge of the table.

Ail-Shan wrote:
The table itself is. If you are playing on a floor with marker lines/tape for your boundary, you don't even need to invoke WMS. But since the table is in the air, and the table is terrain (clear terrain), WMS, annoyingly, applies.

Actually WMS would not apply here either.

the clear terrain is not making it wobbly, it being off the board is making it wobbly.

ergo WMS does not apply.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Such as how to account for LoS, Range, cover status and other factors which depend on being able to place a model physically within defined terrain.

What prevents you from doing any of those things entirely normally?

The fact that there is no terrain off the edge of the table.

And you need this terrain for these situations... why?

LOS is drawn from the firer, why do you need terrain past the edge of the table for it?
Range is measured from the firer to the hull, why do you need terrain past the edge of the table to do this?
Cover status is determined via obscurement from the point of view of the firer, and vehicles don't benefit from basic area terrain cover, why do you need terrain past the edge of the table?

The vehicle isn't magically half missing, it's still there.

Yes but determining the postion of the firer and what section of the vehicle he is shooting at might be off the table. Making it an illegal placement.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

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 is a red haring fallacous arguement.

Actually, incorrect. I am drawing an analogy here.

You are statng that you need explicit permission to do something, as you keep asking how you can use the word "partially" to fulfil reserves. This is analogous to the flawed argument that you cannot deploy in woods, because you are only given permission to deploy in your half of the table.
^ Is that not suppose to be "on" for it to really be in line with this arguement?
In this case you are bringing something up that has nothing to do with the arguement. That is why it is fallacous. Secondly, that is your thought process, not my words. So again that statment is all your own and has none of my words in it.

You can deploy in woods because the deployment rules give you general permission to deploy in your half, and the woods are in your half.
You can move partially on because the reserve rules only requre you to move "onto", and partially on(to) is a subset of this general permission

Yes but the reserve rules are not the only thing that moving partially on effects. You also have to look at the playing area (which you refuse to do). Those rules give you a defined area of play. You need to be in that area of play otherwise the game breaks.

me wrote: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

I have requoted myself, because this is important: YOU NEED TO PROVE THE CONTRA. You need to prove that partially on is NOT a subset of on otherwise, and here is the important part, the language the book is written in defeats your argument, over and over and over.

Execpt you are refusing to acknowledge there are other rules which have been presented to you.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:We are not talking about what the english language allows we are talking about what the rules allow.

Define "a", then define "the", ONLY USING GAME TERMS.

I do not need to as I have made my point. You are infering things, you need to prove with the rules as they are written why your explantion is right.

Therefore the English "on" is used, and partially on satisifies on.

Execpt this is multiple fallacous arguements. Starting with the one I have already pointed out, going to slippery slope. So no you have proven and satified nothing.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

me wrote: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.

NO, actually it IS your argument, it is the logical result of your argument.

You are stating explicit permission must be given to perform any specific action, to whit moving partially onto the table. YOu also, therefore, logically require that explicit permission is required in order to deploy within woods.

Sorry, I am using logic (reductio ad absurdum) to show that your argument is highly flawed.

Execpt it is your logic that has produced these statments, not mine. So they are your and not mine. Your words, your thoughts, not mine.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: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.

Then please report it. I have attacked 1 person for rudely NOT reading the thread before jumping in with both feet. I have attacked your arguments only.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: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!

It is RAW, pure and simple.

It is not RAW. Period it is your interpretation of RAW, so it is your RAI.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:P.S. I can also point out fallacous arguments!

You have yet to do so. You have made plenty yourself, however

No, it does not need to be "on" at all.

Your argument relies entirely, 100% on requiring explicit permission to do X. I am showing that this is fallacious, and showing you how YOUR argument would apply to a comparable situation.

If you cannot draw that comparison yourself (two situations where explicit permission is not required as general permission has been given) then I;m really not sure how much simpler it can be explained.

It is not fallacious to bring up consequences and analogies, btw. You are just wrong here. It is not fallacious to explain the consequences of your argument, and in fact show how that is also wrong.

Do you understand why this is done? Why showing you that, not only is your argument wrong in this specific instance but also leads to incorrect arguments elsewhere?

People have tried to explain this to you using language, which you dismiss, mathematics, which you dismiss; analogy, which you dismiss; and applying your argument to other situations in the book, which you dismiss. Exactly how CAN people explain this to you?

PLease find the words "area of play" and rules which require you to be *****entirely***** within this "area of play", and you may have a point. I have NOT REFUSED to look at the rules defining the game board, I have answered this many times - I suggest paying a little more attention.

Note: this requries the exact phrase "entirely within" or something similar. If, as I suspect you will, you come back with the rules only mentioning "on", well you will have just proven yourself incorrect.

I HAVE explained why I am correct, RAW. You have not explained how you are correct, and your argument relies on not being able to use the lnaguage the book is written in.

As you are claiming you cannot use the language the book is written in, I require you to define "a" using 40k rules. When you have done so, come back.

Again, it is your argument - you posit a requirement for explicit permission, I show what that means. Or are you saying that explicit permission is not needed?

RAW: partially on 10000000% satisfies the requiement to move "onto" the board. To deny this by saying that explicit permission to move partially on, despite the general permission to move partially on already being granted, then you are concluding that you may not deploy models in woods.

How does this all work in Vassal, btw?

From memory i didnt think Vassal tried to enfore the rules of 40k, so assuming the engine allows models partially on it wold be up to the players.

DeathReaper wrote:
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.

wait whats this the actual quote ... "Standard missions were designed to be played on a 6'by4' gaming surface"

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.

Firstly that doesn't say they that games must be played on the table just that they were designed to be . Ignoring that for a second even taking that a Must do rule it would be a very very general rule (they also tell you you can have larger or smaller boards to fit your army ...so they break it fairly quickly)... which is trumped by more specific rules like reserves that start models off the table .

And again, as I pointed out the first time this erroneous argument came up - it still says ON.

On, with no qualifications, is 100% satisfied by "partially on"

DR - If you are partially on you are NOT off, to state the blindingly obvious for the 100th time.

I think that too many people are looking at this problem from a "black and white" perspective. Someone quoted Schrodinger's Cat earlier in this thread (I neither can remember, or be bothered to flick through the thread to remember who), and they were close to the mark. Why can't the vehicle be both ON AND OFF? Because it seems to me that's exactly what's happening. Lets look at some things that (I hope) we can all agree on.

Vehicle Makes it fully on to the table

By this, I mean that none of the model is "hanging"off a table edge. In this case we can safely assume that:

The model is 100% ON the table

All of the model's weapons can shoot (pending LOS and movement restrictions for non-defensive weapons of course)[/li]

Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is 100% flush against that side

In this scenario, we can assume:

The model is 100% OFF

NONE of the model's weapons can shoot, as they are not in play

In kill point terms, the model is destroyed

If anyone has major disagreements with these statements, you're going to love what's next! The next points are about the HYBRID situation, of a model's hull being partially within the gaming area (i.e. the 6 x 4), and partially off of this space.

Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is NOT 100% flush against that side, and is immobilised as it tries to enter

Here's where things get a little vague. Here is my interpretation:

The model is X% OFF the table and Y% ON the table

The model is NOT destroyed

Given that in the BRB, it states (though I cannot remember where) "Every wargamer knows that off the table is the end of the world", the only guns which can fire, are those not "out of the gaming world" (i.e off the table surface). I base this assumption, on the fact that if "off the table" really is "the end of the world", then how can it be determined that shooting that weapon isnt impeded by some unseen obstacle? If off the table there is no way to determine that is in that single millimetre of space between the gun and the table, how can one safely say that LOS isn't impeded? You can't, purely because neither player knows what is there, and speculation is not one of the rules of the game

Close combat attacks against the vehicle will still be resolved against rear armour (pending it's not a walker)

I'm certain this will be nitpicked, but I can't see any other logical conclusion to this argument.

liam0404 wrote:I think that too many people are looking at this problem from a "black and white" perspective. Someone quoted Schrodinger's Cat earlier in this thread (I neither can remember, or be bothered to flick through the thread to remember who), and they were close to the mark. Why can't the vehicle be both ON AND OFF? Because it seems to me that's exactly what's happening. Lets look at some things that (I hope) we can all agree on.

Vehicle Makes it fully on to the table

By this, I mean that none of the model is "hanging"off a table edge. In this case we can safely assume that:

this is not in debate

Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is 100% flush against that side

In this scenario, we can assume:

The model is 100% OFF

NONE of the model's weapons can shoot, as they are not in play

In kill point terms, the model is destroyed

If anyone has major disagreements with these statements, you're going to love what's next! The next points are about the HYBRID situation, of a model's hull being partially within the gaming area (i.e. the 6 x 4), and partially off of this space.

actually models that never make it on to the board are not considered kill points. The only exceptions are a) after rolling on the DS mishap table and B) for wipe out.

We also know where the model is so i would see no reason it cannot be shot, shoot or deploy troops.

Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is NOT 100% flush against that side, and is immobilised as it tries to enter

Here's where things get a little vague. Here is my interpretation:

The model is X% OFF the table and Y% ON the table

The model is NOT destroyed

Given that in the BRB, it states (though I cannot remember where) "Every wargamer knows that off the table is the end of the world", the only guns which can fire, are those not "out of the gaming world" (i.e off the table surface). I base this assumption, on the fact that if "off the table" really is "the end of the world", then how can it be determined that shooting that weapon isnt impeded by some unseen obstacle? If off the table there is no way to determine that is in that single millimetre of space between the gun and the table, how can one safely say that LOS isn't impeded? You can't, purely because neither player knows what is there, and speculation is not one of the rules of the game

Close combat attacks against the vehicle will still be resolved against rear armour (pending it's not a walker)

I'm certain this will be nitpicked, but I can't see any other logical conclusion to this argument.

GW's BGB FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played
clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers
know that the edge of the table is the end of the
world!

And its only moving off so has no bearing. (not to mention its an FAQ so its a house rule any way)
We can measure to and from the model so we can use its weapons.

Tri wrote:

liam0404 wrote:

Vehicle attempts to move on to table at a part of the gameboard where difficult terrain is 100% flush against that side

In this scenario, we can assume:

The model is 100% OFF

NONE of the model's weapons can shoot, as they are not in play

In kill point terms, the model is destroyed

If anyone has major disagreements with these statements, you're going to love what's next! The next points are about the HYBRID situation, of a model's hull being partially within the gaming area (i.e. the 6 x 4), and partially off of this space.

actually models that never make it on to the board are not considered kill points. The only exceptions are a) after rolling on the DS mishap table and B) for wipe out.

We also know where the model is so i would see no reason it cannot be shot, shoot or deploy troops.

You are kidding of course? You're now saying you can shoot a a model that is 100% OFF the table?

liam0404 wrote:You are kidding of course? You're now saying you can shoot a a model that is 100% OFF the table?

Well lets see we target that model or it choose to shoot. We place the model where it was immobilized (just off the board) and measure to/from it.
Easy

Note ... We cannot shoot to or from models in reserve since they have yet to be place.

Even though RAW, the vehicle stops immediately before it comes into contact with the terrain that immobilised it? Which in this case would be OFF THE TABLE?

Wow.

Seriously, Wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By your logic, I should be able to target my shooting against other reserves which have yet to enter the battle via the reserves rule.

liam0404 wrote:Even though RAW, the vehicle stops immediately before it comes into contact with the terrain that immobilised it? Which in this case would be OFF THE TABLE?

Wow.

Seriously, Wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By your logic, I should be able to target my shooting against other reserves which have yet to enter the battle via the reserves rule.

Find me a rule that says it should be ignored or destroyed. (also look at the bottom of my last post ... models in reserve have not been placed we cannot measure to them. This model has been place ... there just off the board)

We have the following options...
A) Raw we stop the vehicle where ever it was immobilized and continue on as normal - this breaks no rule but can be a hassle as you hold the model over the edge.
B) We break a rule. So we ignore the immobilized or we don't push the model out of terrain or use the DS Mishap table- this breaks one rule a little but is a lot easier to play
c) We make up rules. As you have posted - this breaks lots of rules

But you haven't explained why it would be considered "in play", if its "real" position, was immobilised in a location next to the table edge? It is NOT on the table that way - HOW can you shoot at something that is not on the table?

liam0404 wrote:But you haven't explained why it would be considered "in play", if its "real" position, was immobilised in a location next to the table edge? It is NOT on the table that way - HOW can you shoot at something that is not on the table?

Right stop this. Were does it say to shoot at or from some thing it needs to be on the board.
LOS is from the model (or for vehicles from the weapon weapon) to the target. Do we have both? yes - check
Checking range is done from the base (or for vehicles from the weapon). Again we have both - check
about the only thing that could not hurt it are blast weapons and that is because they are misses if the central hole is over the table edge.

As above.

Use WMS, hold the model in the right position and measure to it.

Easy.

Not in that case. Tri you are now breaking the rule that reserves states you move on to the table. Arguing that partially on the table was on the table was successful, but tell me exactly you completely off the table is on the table?

In addition in this case WMS wouldn't apply because you are touching no terrain. If you are a skimmer this is explicitly illegal since the rules for skimmers state that you cannot leave it 'hovering in mid air' and that you must place it on the table.

I can see how you can still interact with the model, but you are now breaking bot the 'played on a 6x4 surface' and the 'move onto the table' from reserves rule, since you are neither on the surface nor moving onto the table.

Actually WMS would not apply here either.

the clear terrain is not making it wobbly, it being off the board is making it wobbly.

ergo WMS does not apply.

This is from a bit ago: The being off the table isn't making the model wobbly. Play on the floor (the rule says 'surface' not 'table') with tape marking the edges and you will notice you can easily place the model. It is wobbly because the table is elevated. The table is clear terrain, hence terrain, and so WMS applies.

So, anyone from the "they are destroyed" camp got any actual arguments remaining? Or are we just spinning round in circles now?

Ail-Shan wrote:Not in that case. Tri you are now breaking the rule that reserves states you move on to the table. Arguing that partially on the table was on the table was successful, but tell me exactly you completely off the table is on the table?.

I did move the tank on ... DT move me off ^_^.
WMS starts by giving the example of terrain and goes on to say cases like this.

Gwar! wrote:So, anyone from the "they are destroyed" camp got any actual arguments remaining? Or are we just spinning round in circles now?

...were you expecting coherent arguments from the circle crowd?

I think I've summed up everything I wanted to say in my earlier post. My cry for a poll also went unheeded.....

I did move the tank on ... DT move me off ^_^.

Tri you are now ignoring the other part, where you are still breaking the rule that the game is played 'on' the gaming surface.

Regardless Dangerous Terrain did not 'move you off,' it prevented you from moving on.