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:

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?

Plenty of coherent arguments have been made, which have been dismissed or ignored. This does not invalidate them. So yes, we are spinning in circles. I suggest you play the game your way, and I will play it mine.

Ail-Shan wrote:

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.

Reserves you must move on. Ok I must move on, oh no failed a dangerous terrain test i can't move any further. Done.

Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'

Tri wrote:

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 .

Only problem is that you have now agreed upon a specific playing area. You changed the playing area from 6x4 to 3x2. In that instance you need to be on, or within this area as it has been agreed upon before hand.

Nos on many an occassin we have spared. This situation is no different. I would like to point out that you using analogies to try to prove my point wrong has no bearing on this issues, since this issue is unique. I have used mathmatics, to prove you wrong, I have stated that your interpretations of what your read is RAI (language), and yet you have yet to acknowldege those things. I am at the point to where I am going to just up and contact GW and get an anwser from them.

Addtionally, I woud like to point out you are not the only one that can say fallacous arguements have been presented, as I have stated many times now yur arguements are just as fallacous.

Moving on.

To tri, as you see I have posted a rebuttal to you situation. In those instances when you and your oppenent agree to change the playing area, you both have come to the understanding that the gaming area is defined. So in like most games, where they are played on a 6x4 foot table, being outside that area at all is not allowable. It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag. Think about it this way. If someone you were playing said I am gonna shoot this pie plate at your squad right here with my (Insert name can't remember its name) which has 7 feet worth of range. You say you cannot, it is not on/in the playing area. To which he reply's oh the playing area doesn't matter. You would not play with him again, because he has broken the game.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.

Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Only problem is that you have now agreed upon a specific playing area. You changed the playing area from 6x4 to 3x2. In that instance you need to be on, or within this area as it has been agreed upon before hand.

Nos on many an occassin we have spared. This situation is no different. I would like to point out that you using analogies to try to prove my point wrong has no bearing on this issues, since this issue is unique. I have used mathmatics, to prove you wrong, I have stated that your interpretations of what your read is RAI (language), and yet you have yet to acknowldege those things. I am at the point to where I am going to just up and contact GW and get an anwser from them.

Addtionally, I woud like to point out you are not the only one that can say fallacous arguements have been presented, as I have stated many times now yur arguements are just as fallacous.

Moving on.

To tri, as you see I have posted a rebuttal to you situation. In those instances when you and your oppenent agree to change the playing area, you both have come to the understanding that the gaming area is defined. So in like most games, where they are played on a 6x4 foot table, being outside that area at all is not allowable. It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag. Think about it this way. If someone you were playing said I am gonna shoot this pie plate at your squad right here with my (Insert name can't remember its name) which has 7 feet worth of range. You say you cannot, it is not on/in the playing area. To which he reply's oh the playing area doesn't matter. You would not play with him again, because he has broken the game.

First there is no rule that you must play on the table, what is written is "It was designed to be played on a 4' by 6' table". I may not have made that clear in the first post but i went on to say that even if it was it is trumped by many more specific rules because not everything happens on the table.

As for being the TFG is would probably have broken the rules and let him immobilizes it on the board. What i wont ever do is except that it is destroy as there is no rule any where that says that. (nice ninja Kirsanth )

Tri wrote: (nice ninja Kirsanth )

" border="0" />

KP - this situation isnt unique, not at all. You also dont seem to understand what RAI means vs RAW.

You are given general permission to move onto the board; partially onto is a sub occurence of this general permission and is thus allowed

You are allowed to place models anywhere IN your half of the board. If you want to place models in woods this is allowed as this is a specific instance of the general permission.

To deny the first you ARE denying the second. One is right, the other is wrong.

Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'

'Designed to be played on' meaning 'this is what we think the gaming are should be. You can do differently if you wish' which then leads back to the 'Most Important Rule' stating that the 'rules aren't all that important.'

Therefore every game is a house ruled game and none of the rules matter because, as Cpt Barbossa says 'they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.'

The entire concept of RAW goes out the window when you argue 'but they say you can play it differently' because they say at the very beginning that you can play the whole thing as differently as you want. Thus by RAW when a vehicle is immobilized and partially off the table, you do whatever you and your opponent agree to, and that is true of every dispute.

Ail-Shan wrote:

Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'

'Designed to be played on' meaning 'this is what we think the gaming are should be. You can do differently if you wish'

No, meaning 'Designed to be played on'.

If they wanted to strictly restrict all play to completely inside that area, then they'd put in a rule doing so. There isn't such a rule, so there isn't such a restriction.
Note that the rule would make normal reserve arrival impossible, but people arguing for it don't seem to mind for some reason.

Following the rest of the paragraph, I'd infer that 'designed to be played on' is actually only refering to the dimensions. Of course there is no way to prove this so the paragraph is naturally picked apart so that 'designed to be played on' is used to refer to whether or not you have to play 'on' the table at all. It's logical, but rediculous.

If they wanted to strictly restrict all play to completely inside that area, then they'd put in a rule doing so.

I thought that SM scouts had the 'scout special rule,' which doesn't exist in the BRB. I recall reading somewhere (on Warseer I believe) that this must be a new yet unintroduced special rule because GW is very specific with their words to ensure that people can't lawyer their way into certain actions.

Ail-Shan wrote:I thought that SM scouts had the 'scout special rule,' which doesn't exist in the BRB. I recall reading somewhere (on Warseer I believe) that this must be a new yet unintroduced special rule because GW is very specific with their words to ensure that people can't lawyer their way into certain actions.

You are thinking of the unit "Wolf Scouts Pack" from Codex: Space Wolves. They have a Special rule called "Scout", with no indication of what it does.

The unit "Scouts Squad" from Codex: Space Marines does have the "Scouts" USR.

Ail-Shan wrote:I thought that SM scouts had the 'scout special rule,' which doesn't exist in the BRB. I recall reading somewhere (on Warseer I believe) that this must be a new yet unintroduced special rule because GW is very specific with their words to ensure that people can't lawyer their way into certain actions.

So the argument goes something like:
"You aren't allowed to do that. The vehicle is destroyed."
"Wait, what? Where do the rules say that?"
"Well they don't, but GW writes bad rules so I'm right because I think so."

Gorkamorka wrote:So the argument goes something like:
"You aren't allowed to do that. The vehicle is destroyed."
"Wait, what? Where do the rules say that?"
"Well they don't, but GW writes bad rules so I'm right because I think so."

Repeat that for 14 pages, and you are dead on.

So the argument goes something like:
"You aren't allowed to do that. The vehicle is destroyed."
"Wait, what? Where do the rules say that?"
"Well they don't, but GW writes bad rules so I'm right because I think so."

I have not made any claim as to what happens when a vehicle is partially off the table for what ever reason in this thread, and haven't asserted that being partially off the table is illigal for a few pages now.

I'm pointing out that claiming that since GW didn't specifically say you have to play 'inside' the gaming surface means that you can play outside of it is faulty. In addition, the original pupose of my point was to state why you couldn't be fully off the table (you are required to be 'on' the table), not that you cannot be partially off the table (nos is correct that partially on is on).

Ail-Shan wrote:
I'm pointing out that claiming that since GW didn't specifically say you have to play 'inside' the gaming surface means that you can play outside of it is faulty.

How is the completely legal series of actions that leads to this situation faulty? How is the result, which is from a completely legal series of actions and is never declared illegal, illegal?

The burden of proof is on you and the rules, not on the people performing a series of normally completely allowed actions.
"It doesn't say I can't" is a completely legitimate argument when you already can do something.

How is the completely legal series of actions that leads to this situation faulty? How is the result, which is from a completely legal series of actions and is never declared illegal, illegal?

Because of the declaration that the game is designed to be played on a 6x4 gaming surface. The dimesion is less important than the fact that it is to be played 'on' the gaming surface. While, yes, partially on is on, completely off is in no way on.

Well, after reading 14 pages of this my eyes hurt...so I'll keep this short.

RAW: nothing I can find says what happens to a vehicle that gets immobilized flush with the table edge. If it gets immobilized a little on/off I just thought it was WMS, find a spot and let's keep playing the game.

RAI : I have no clue what GW thinks half the time anyway so

And lastly, the rules concerning emergency disembark and trapped while falling back almost made sense to me about destroying the vehicle. Can't place it on the table: gone. Can't run back to the table edge: gone. Vehicle can't move onto the table - oh yeah, no rule. Let's house rule/agree what happens and play this game. (And no, how I play this will be my little secret. Oh and the TOs )

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.

Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.

Not a problem with me since I am not saying that it should be destroyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Only problem is that you have now agreed upon a specific playing area. You changed the playing area from 6x4 to 3x2. In that instance you need to be on, or within this area as it has been agreed upon before hand.

Nos on many an occassin we have spared. This situation is no different. I would like to point out that you using analogies to try to prove my point wrong has no bearing on this issues, since this issue is unique. I have used mathmatics, to prove you wrong, I have stated that your interpretations of what your read is RAI (language), and yet you have yet to acknowldege those things. I am at the point to where I am going to just up and contact GW and get an anwser from them.

Addtionally, I woud like to point out you are not the only one that can say fallacous arguements have been presented, as I have stated many times now yur arguements are just as fallacous.

Moving on.

To tri, as you see I have posted a rebuttal to you situation. In those instances when you and your oppenent agree to change the playing area, you both have come to the understanding that the gaming area is defined. So in like most games, where they are played on a 6x4 foot table, being outside that area at all is not allowable. It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag. Think about it this way. If someone you were playing said I am gonna shoot this pie plate at your squad right here with my (Insert name can't remember its name) which has 7 feet worth of range. You say you cannot, it is not on/in the playing area. To which he reply's oh the playing area doesn't matter. You would not play with him again, because he has broken the game.

First there is no rule that you must play on the table, what is written is "It was designed to be played on a 4' by 6' table". I may not have made that clear in the first post but i went on to say that even if it was it is trumped by many more specific rules because not everything happens on the table.

As for being the TFG is would probably have broken the rules and let him immobilizes it on the board. What i wont ever do is except that it is destroy as there is no rule any where that says that. (nice ninja Kirsanth )

So hey lets play a game over the internet, or how about on the telephone? Since the area of play does not matter, then we don't need anything to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:KP - this situation isnt unique, not at all. You also dont seem to understand what RAI means vs RAW.

You are given general permission to move onto the board; partially onto is a sub occurence of this general permission and is thus allowed

You are allowed to place models anywhere IN your half of the board. If you want to place models in woods this is allowed as this is a specific instance of the general permission.

To deny the first you ARE denying the second. One is right, the other is wrong.

That is you interpretation. Your RAI

My interpretation is different. I consider other things like playing area. My RAI.

As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.

Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?

(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)

Gorkamorka wrote:

Ail-Shan wrote:

Not ignoring the other part, the game was 'Designed to be played on a 6 by 4 foot table': that is not the 'game is played on' or 'the game only takes place on the table'

'Designed to be played on' meaning 'this is what we think the gaming are should be. You can do differently if you wish'

No, meaning 'Designed to be played on'.

If they wanted to strictly restrict all play to completely inside that area, then they'd put in a rule doing so. There isn't such a rule, so there isn't such a restriction.
Note that the rule would make normal reserve arrival impossible, but people arguing for it don't seem to mind for some reason.

Actually, when you play a game you and your oppenent are suppose to argee on the playing area. So then you are breaking an agreement with your oppenent. Additionally, I would like to see you do such a thing and watch as (at least in my area) you would be laugh out the store.

Reseveres has a specific thing you do. My interpretation does not break that. Reserves covers the rules about what you do. It has the resevers rules that you follow, and they detail what you do.

Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.

Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?

(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)

Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.

Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.

Not a problem with me since I am not saying that it should be destroyed.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: the vehicle is forfiet

Functionally identical in 2/3 of the games, and the last third it's almost as bad.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Reserves covers the rules about what you do. It has the resevers rules that you follow, and they detail what you do.

Reserves move on to the board, like everyone has said.

If they move on to the board and do not fit entirely for whatever reason, the rules do NOT "detail what you do".

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.

Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?

(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)

Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.

And the rest of the unit, which isn't physically on the table in the sense that vertically underneath it there is no table, counts as being on the table?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.

Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?

(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)

Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.

And the rest of the unit, which isn't physically on the table in the sense that vertically underneath it there is no table, counts as being on the table?

No, because all of the models will need to be 1mm on.

I think we misunderstand each other. I was talking about having all the models on the unit be 1mm on. This is fair and legal.

pages ago kirsanth wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:OK, if units do not have to move fully onto the table, what happens if a unit is deployed like this?

_

The line represents 1mm of the front edge of the base of one of the troops, on the table. The rest of the unit is off the table.

Nothing.

The unit is legally on the table.

No, as you cannot measure coherency to models not (at least partially) on the table.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As the thread has gone on for such a long time I have lost sight of the issues.

Are we saying that as long as you get 1mm of your unit within the boundary defined by the edge of the table, then the unit is "on" the table within the meaning of the game?

(I chose 1mm because that is the smallest division on a standard tape measure.)

Yes, because that is perfectly acceptable within the framework of the rules.

And the rest of the unit, which isn't physically on the table in the sense that vertically underneath it there is no table, counts as being on the table?

No, because all of the models will need to be 1mm on.

I think we misunderstand each other. I was talking about having all the models on the unit be 1mm on. This is fair and legal.

Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?

Because models must be on the table?

Cut it simply RAW is this...

All units must move on when come in from reserve. That means that every thing must move towards being on the table. This means that normally all unit must have all models at least partially on the table.

Vehicles can come into difficulty as they can be shunted out of the terrain they were trying to enter, there for if the terrain is on the edge they are placed off the board.

We can use Wobbly model syndrome here or when the model is partially on: it specifies it can be used in situations where a model is placed where it may fall and be damaged. We mark the spot and place the mode safely on the board. When we need to measure to that model we hold it in place were it was immobilized.

Note you cannot shoot at models in reserve as they have not yet been placed so you cannot measure to or from them.

...and that is RAW. Every one is welcome to house rule this differently, myself I'll immobilize the vehicle on the board after its finished moving.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do all the models need to be 1mm on?

Because models must be on the table?

Where does it say that?

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:It breaks the game and will get you a TFG tag.

Exactly the same thing that happens when you tell someone their vehicle (along with anything potentially embarked within) is destroyed for no reason in the rule book.

Not a problem with me since I am not saying that it should be destroyed.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: the vehicle is forfiet

Functionally identical in 2/3 of the games, and the last third it's almost as bad.

In a later poast I agree with you that, my suggestion at that time was a horrible one. Don't nit pick to prove yourself right here. Especailly when someone is trying to work with you. Also forfiet is not destroyed, it is like but is not.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: Reserves covers the rules about what you do. It has the resevers rules that you follow, and they detail what you do.

Reserves move on to the board, like everyone has said.

If they move on to the board and do not fit entirely for whatever reason, the rules do NOT "detail what you do".

I am just gonna say this one thing. to those of you who think partially on is okay within the rules, tell me how completely on is any different. With this in mind you (who have) stated that partially on fullfills the requirements are putting you own interpretation on what is required. Give me verbatum from the book and I will agree with you. Until then this arguement as I have stated many times is RAI.

At this point I would point you to the area of play arguement. Did you follow the rules for moving your models onto the board? Not by your understanding, but did you complete the things you must do? Like playing within/on the agreed upon space?