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.

The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.


Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on? I, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on. If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.

I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.

So we are playing a game and I have some assualt troops in reserve about to come onto the board, we have effectively dismissed the area of play requirement. So I decide to bring my assault troops on, 13 inchs away from your unit. You contest that, and say I cannot. I say I have no models behind that point, therefore it is me puting my models on the board near my table edge.(remember we got rid of the area of play) So I have done something that is completely legal by your defenition. (This is my idea, and logic from your words. Not "what your saying". As I have been insisting you who have attributade many false things to me have done.)

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:OK.

The reserves rule requires units not models to move on to the table.

The reserve movement rules explain how to move individual models within the unit if you want to move them.

Players are not require to move all the models within a unit if they decide to move some of them. The unit still counts as moving.

Thus if 1mm of a model's base moves on to the table, the whole unit is 'on' the table.

Sorry, but they are for reserves.

"Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield..."

You cannot measure a move that doesn't happen. Therefore, since you are measuring a models move, IT MUST HAVE MOVED.

Not true. You can measure a model's move, and decide to measure and move in another direction or even decide not to move it at all (BRB page 11).
Therefore measuring a model's move does not mean it must have moved.

However, if you roll the dice for a difficult terrain test, the unit is considered to have moved for shooting purposes, even if it wasn't moved.

To the OP question, I agree with the "the vehicle has made it onto the table and is immobilized" camp.
The issue centers around the terrain being flush with the edge of the table. Suppose it was 1/2" from the edge of the table? Could the vehicle then move onto the table, fail a dangerous test and stop at that point and be immobilized?
At what point do you say that the vehicle has moved far enough to be considered "on the table"?
It must be that if any portion makes it onto the table, the vehicle (or the unit for that matter) are "n the table" and "in play".
To decide otherwise breaks the game by requiring an entire subset of rules to govern the movement.
The simplest solution without breaking any rules is usually the best, and in this case the simplest solution is that the vehicle is on the table and in play.

where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on?

The point is that 'on' is a qualifier. Legally to arrive from reserves you must move 'on' the gaming surface.

However, there is in no place in the BRB a specification that this must be 'fully' onto the table. Therefore the English language takes over to describe what 'on' means. Since having any part of the model 'on' the table means it is 'on' the table, you satisfy the entering from reserves rule.

It isn't that we're taking the rules as permissive in this case, but that in no place is there a further specification of what 'on' means, and so we are left with the definition we recieve from a dictionary, where having any part on, means you are on.

Also we aren't dismissing the idea of a restricted area of play. However, in no place in the BRB does it specify that you must be 'in' the game area, only that you must be 'on' it. Therefore we are left at the same place, where we must consult a dictionary to define 'on,' and we conclude that 'partially on' is still 'on.' Therefore we are not breaking the rules of play because we are 'on' the gaming area, which is all that is required.

KP, we have not removed the area of play (remember I had to argue against Tri that you can't be completely out of the area of play). We are simply following the instruction that we are to be 'on' the area of play, starting our move from the very edge of it (hence why bringing on your assault troops in the middle of the table is faulty). Since you did not bring your assault troops on by starting their move at the edge of the gaming surface, you are breaking the reserve rule.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.


Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on? I, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on. If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.

I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.

So we are playing a game and I have some assualt troops in reserve about to come onto the board, we have effectively dismissed the area of play requirement. So I decide to bring my assault troops on, 13 inchs away from your unit. You contest that, and say I cannot. I say I have no models behind that point, therefore it is me puting my models on the board near my table edge.(remember we got rid of the area of play) So I have done something that is completely legal by your defenition. (This is my idea, and logic from your words. Not "what your saying". As I have been insisting you who have attributade many false things to me have done.)

This argument is garbage. The monolith isn't forced to deepstrike. It says specifically in the BRB that the only time a unit is forced to deepstrike is when it is immobile. The monolith is not immobile, and therefore does not have to deepstrike. It can legally move in from the table edge as per the rules of reserves. Edit: page 94, arriving from reserves, paragraph 3

The word on means that it is "on". It does not mean FULLY on. It only means on. Being partially on the table, is still being on the table.

We haven't dismissed the area of play AT ALL. You must move in from the board edge and onto the table, as per the rules. Our argument is only that any part of the model being on the board, is on the board.

It is a rare situation. Generally, I would suggest a player avoid such controversy by moving onto the board from another point.

RAW does not cover this directly.

From a RAI standpoint, the 5th edition core tries to avoid destroying units via loopholes in the rules. They seem to want to give every unit a chance to fight without rules interference. For example:
* Switching deep strike to a mishap table instead of auto-destroyed (4th ed)
* Allowing disembarkation from points other than the access points when those are blocked
* Ignoring rules that prevent movement when moving on from reserves
* Allowing immobile units to deepstrike in when the mission would prevent their deployment from reserves

Generally, it is when a unit's movement is inhibited by their opponent's activity that it is auto-destroyed. Examples:
* An embarked unit is auto-destroyed when an enemy totally surrounds their transport vehicle to a depth of 2" before destroying it
* A unit falling back from the enemy is auto-destroyed if their path of escape entirely cut off

I would let the unit ignore the difficult terrain rule that could prevent their moving on from reserves in accordance with the RAI.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.

So you would force the Nec ron player to always deepstrike their Monolith?

Lol

Doesnt alter that plastic Baneblades are never allkowed to enter play, according to your incorrect interpretation of the rules.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on?

As you are fully aware, and as you have been told about 20 times per page for 10 pages, the English Language.

Is "on" qualified? There is a simple answer to this. Once you have answered this question you have your answer.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on.

So your interpretation requires inserting words into an otherwise unqualified statement?

Do you not see the fallacy in that? At all?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.

And this is where you show the extent of how wrong you are. You are requiring us to show that an unqualified statement (general permission, if you will) has been qualified (say, specific permission) otherweise you think it is our interpretation? Lol.
That isnt how the rules or language works.

General permission: move onto
Specific permission: move partially onto -> not needed, granted by the unqualified permission granted above

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.

You keep saying this, as if it were true. Sorry, noone has dismissed this, and you keep ignoring that in the hope sufficient repetition will make people belive you. Not happening.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:The monolith has an execption, which is it is aloowed to deploy with deepstrike.

So you would force the Nec ron player to always deepstrike their Monolith?

Lol

Doesnt alter that plastic Baneblades are never allkowed to enter play, according to your incorrect interpretation of the rules.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Addtionally, I would like to point out that those who are saying that partially on is on (again) where in the BRB does it say that partially on means on?

As you are fully aware, and as you have been told about 20 times per page for 10 pages, the English Language.

Is "on" qualified? There is a simple answer to this. Once you have answered this question you have your answer.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:, like deathreaper, and killkrazy read it another way. We read it that on means fully on.

So your interpretation requires inserting words into an otherwise unqualified statement?

Do you not see the fallacy in that? At all?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote: If you can quote from the rulebook that partially on is on then you are right, if you cannot then it is your interpretation of the rules.

And this is where you show the extent of how wrong you are. You are requiring us to show that an unqualified statement (general permission, if you will) has been qualified (say, specific permission) otherweise you think it is our interpretation? Lol.
That isnt how the rules or language works.

General permission: move onto
Specific permission: move partially onto -> not needed, granted by the unqualified permission granted above

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I would also like to point out that simply dismissing the idea of the restrictive area of play breaks the game, and I will give another example.

You keep saying this, as if it were true. Sorry, noone has dismissed this, and you keep ignoring that in the hope sufficient repetition will make people belive you. Not happening.

So on means partially off, nice!
???

DeathReaper wrote:
So on means partially off, nice!
???

Feel free to actually prove your argument logically, linguistically, or through examples...
Oh wait, you can't. Your entire argument is that your argument is right because you think it is, despite conclusive proof to the contrary.

ChrisCP wrote:

Apparently I need to post this on every single page until you get it.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
So on means partially off, nice!
???

Feel free to actually prove your argument logically, linguistically, or through examples...
Oh wait, you can't. Your entire argument is that your argument is right because you think it is, despite conclusive proof to the contrary.

Isn't that the truth. He seems to be banking on the fact that partially off doesn't mean that it is also on the board. Which is incorrect.

DR - do you have an argument, or are you just ignoring everything and blindly repeating the same words over and over and over again?

*looks over last 10 pages* yep, yes you are doing exactly that.

Y0ou have been proven conclusively incorrect, yet still you persist. Worth some points somewhere, I guess.

This is the end. I have to say it and walk away, because quite frankly there is no talking to anybody who cannot ever consider the possibilty that they are wrong.

Give me undisputable fact that your thoery, thought, belief, whatever you are gonna call it is right. I think that on multilpe levels we have proven each other wrong. The only problem, you refuse to acknowledge it.

You have qualified being on the table without taking into account the other rules of the game. Period. End of discussion. Now where does it give any specifics about whether partially on the table is on the table and fully on the table is on the table. Addtionally, when we are talking about a model, are we talking about a piece, a part, some incredibly small bit of the piece? NOOOOOO!!!!!!! The game happens as a whole, the turns happen as a whole, the models are put together to make a WHOLE MODEL!!!!! FFS seriously you are trying to qualify your point with no real truth to it or support for it.

I will give you the defintion to the compostion fallacy, and the slippery slope one as well.Just so you know what I am talking about. I have no idea if you do since you continue on argueing for something which in its own nature is false!
Compostion Fallacy below
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
Slipper Slope Fallacy below
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Both have examples so you can better understand them.

To end my posting for a while, I will be away for the next 5-7 days as personal family events take me to other places. I hope that we can all agree that this has niether been helpful to those searching for anwsers, or come to a conclusion. To everyone I wish a wonderful week, and I will be back hoepfully when sanity on both sides have been restored. ADUE!

I would like to see this discussion carry on for at least 20 more pages full of rebuttals and refinements. This thread is extremely interesting to follow and both sides have lots of interesting points to consider. I am hoping this is fully addressed when the sixth edition rules are released to the public. Personally this particular issue has never cropped up once in any game I ever played but having read all the issues here I understand why it is important and looks to need clarification from an august body.

Kapitalist-Pig we have answer you have not. The simple fact is this the model is stranded off the board, we can shoot it and it can shoot. This is (now i'm only guessing here ...this just my opinion) not how games workshop want it played. Though as much as i believe that those are the rules and you have two options.
A) play it that way
B) create a house rule with you opponent.

If the terrain was right on the board edge like this:


The vehicle would hit the terrain, fail its test, and subsequently be placed one inch off the table edge. Hence it is not on the board, and is destroyed.

So in Deadshane1's case, he would be correct. Wouldn't he?

Ironhide wrote:Hence it is not on the board, and is destroyed.

Really? You found that page reference to back this then? Thanks for finding it, but you left it out of your post.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
You have qualified being on the table without taking into account the other rules of the game. Period. End of discussion. Now where does it give any specifics about whether partially on the table is on the table and fully on the table is on the table. Addtionally, when we are talking about a model, are we talking about a piece, a part, some incredibly small bit of the piece? NOOOOOO!!!!!!! The game happens as a whole, the turns happen as a whole, the models are put together to make a WHOLE MODEL!!!!! FFS seriously you are trying to qualify your point with no real truth to it or support for it.

What other rules of the game?
The entire point is that we're including all of the rules of the game and finding no mention of the restriction you insist exists. Without a restriction, satisfying the given rules is sufficient. Moving partially on is moving on is legal. "Period. End of discussion."

I will give you the defintion to the compostion fallacy, and the slippery slope one as well.Just so you know what I am talking about. I have no idea if you do since you continue on argueing for something which in its own nature is false!
Compostion Fallacy below
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
Slipper Slope Fallacy below
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Both have examples so you can better understand them.

And neither apply.

Composition fallacy has nothing to do with this issue. Read through the examples given in your own link. We are not incorrectly inferring something about a larger group from the characteristics of a subset, we're correctly inferring something about the status of an object using the state of the entire object. Noone is saying that if part of the model is on then it must be "entirely on" (the fallacy you imply).
But if the object is both on and off the board... then it's on the board (and off the board, but we don't care).
Someone who is partially on fire can correctly be said to be "On fire". Not every part of them is on fire, they aren't "Entirely engulfed in flames", but that's not what we're talking about. As a whole, they can be referred to as on fire because part of them is. This is extremely basic English.

As for slippery slope, I'm pretty sure what you were after was reductio ad absurdum. I don't think anyone slippery sloped your argument in the entire thread, they merely pointed out logical conclusions of it that made it clearly ridiculous.
If you argue:
"Every part of your vehicle must be on the playing surface or it's destroyed"
A perfectly correct logical absurdum argument is:
"Well the roof of every vehicle is off the surface, so all vehicles are destroyed"
It's not facetious. It's logical proof that your position is completely untenable.

kirsanth wrote:

Ironhide wrote:Hence it is not on the board, and is destroyed.

Really? You found that page reference to back this then? Thanks for finding it, but you left it out of your post.

Page 57. The vehicle must stop just outside the terrain and is immobilized. Since the terrain is flush with the board, it is off the board and unable to come on. It has always been my understanding that units not on the board at the end of the game are counted as destroyed, but since I can find no reference to this; I guess it is no longer the case.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
So on means partially off, nice!
???

Feel free to actually prove your argument logically, linguistically, or through examples...
Oh wait, you can't. Your entire argument is that your argument is right because you think it is, despite conclusive proof to the contrary.

ChrisCP wrote:

Apparently I need to post this on every single page until you get it.

Those guys are on AND off the table, I guess I will have to post that on every page until you get it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - do you have an argument, or are you just ignoring everything and blindly repeating the same words over and over and over again?

*looks over last 10 pages* yep, yes you are doing exactly that.

Y0ou have been proven conclusively incorrect, yet still you persist. Worth some points somewhere, I guess.

no one has proven me incorrect.

I simply state that partially on is partially off. this conclusion comes from the state of the model not being fully on the playing surface, thus it is only partially on, and at the same time it is partially off.

If you guys can not acknowledge this then you have no basis on which to debate.

if we can not agree on this then there is no debate.

If other side denies this claim that is the reason for debate.

Since you seem to think there is no hard and fast rules for this, we have to look at other rules. the falling back rule sets a precedent about the edge of the board (being that past the edge is out of play) the Deep strike rules seem to go along with this precedent. therefore since there is no current precedent for this situation we have to look at the precedent set by similar situational rules.

kirsanth wrote:I think he just wants the last word so he can pretend his words make sense.

Partially on is not off.

By that logic, Partially off is not on.

DeathReaper wrote:By that logic, Partially off is not on.

And yet another incorrect and unfounded assumption that has been covered repeatedly for pages. Completely.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:By that logic, Partially off is not on.

And yet another incorrect and unfounded assumption that has been covered repeatedly for pages. Completely.

So Partially on is not off.

but the reverse is not true?

Partially off is on, not off?

LOL got it.

Interesting logic you have there.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Apparently I need to post this on every single page until you get it.

Those guys are on AND off the table

Wait wait wait. So they're on... and you admit that they're on and know that they're on... but you don't think they're on?
Even after specifically admitting that they are on?

That's... that's just hilarious, honestly.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. You just blatantly said that the opposite of what you've been arguing for 10 pages is true.

because quite frankly there is no talking to anybody who cannot ever consider the possibilty that they are wrong.

I changed my position, though not in the way you'd have liked admittedly.

Those guys are on AND off the table, I guess I will have to post that on every page until you get it.

There is nowhere in the BRB any specification as to what happens when you are not on the board other than the specific reference of deepstrike.

However, I'm learning set theory and want to incorperate some math, Labling on the table as A, off as B, and the model as X.

The requirement of the rules is that X is an element of set A, that is that the model is on the table. Your argument is that, since X is an element of AnB, it is off the table. You are removing the piece that states that X is an element of A. In addition, there are no rules of what happens when a model is off the board (only that it is illigal to not be on the board when you are deployed/enter from reserves). You are arguing that since X is an element of B, it is an illegal placement, while the rest of us (those who propose the opposite) are arguing that, since X is an element of A (on the board), it is satisfying the specifications of the rules.

The illigal placement happens when X is not an element of A (or is an element of A'), not when X is an element of B.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:


Those guys are on AND off the table

Wait wait wait. So they're on... and you admit that they're on and know that they're on... but you don't think they're on?
Even after specifically admitting that they are on?

That's... that's just hilarious, honestly.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. You just blatantly said that the opposite of what you're arguing is true.

Ail-Shan wrote:
There is nowhere in the BRB any specification as to what happens when you are not on the board other than the specific reference of deepstrike.

However, I'm learning set theory and want to incorperate some math, Labling on the table as A, off as B, and the model as X.

The requirement of the rules is that X is an element of set A, that is that the model is on the table. Your argument is that, since X is an element of AnB, it is off the table. You are removing the piece that states that X is an element of A. In addition, there are no rules of what happens when a model is off the board (only that it is illigal to not be on the board when you are deployed/enter from reserves). You are arguing that since X is an element of B, it is an illegal placement, while the rest of us (those who propose the opposite) are arguing that, since X is an element of A (on the board), it is satisfying the specifications of the rules.

The illigal placement happens when X is not an element of A (or is an element of A'), not when X is an element of B.

The reverse would be true Ali, since requiring you to be on the table shows that you can not be off the table. you have to be on it, the opposite of off.

I have said those guys are on the table, AND at the same time they are OFF the table as well.

and since partially on is Partially off, and since you have to be on the table, and since on is inclusive (since if a part of the base is off, by default that part can not be on the table) you have to have the whole base on the table.

If you can point to a part of the base that is not on the table, then you have not satisfied the 'On the table' requirement.

its all or nothing.

DeathReaper wrote:I have said those guys are on the table,

That is all that the rules ask. Thank you, carry on.

Ah that post reminds me of something I wanted to address.

Addtionally, when we are talking about a model, are we talking about a piece, a part, some incredibly small bit of the piece? No!

That's actually part of the point. The model, as a whole, is on the table because part of the model is on the table. As a direct game comparison, if just part of a model is in area terrain, the model is counted as in terrain (yes I admit this has nothing to do with deployment/reserve movement, but it's an adequate comparison to show a point).

DeathReaper wrote: you have to have the whole base on the table.

This is you actually making things up and then trying to hold them up as actual rules.

and since partially on is Partially off, and since you have to be on the table, and since on is inclusive (since if a part of the base is off, by default that part can not be on the table) you have to have the whole base on the table.

If you can point to a part of the base that is not on the table, then you have not satisfied the 'On the table' requirement.

Mind you, pointing to a part of the model and claiming that 'that part isn't on so you are off the table' is going against KP's point that we are considering whole models, not just parts.

In any case, you are still arguing that we are off because X is an element of B, when all that the rules ask is that X is an element of A, or not an element of A'. As a further point, B is not a sub-set of A' because it contains values of X that are elements of AnB. Thus, just because X is an element of B doesn't mean that it's an element of A', and therefore X being an element of B is irrelivant (all we care about is whether X is an element of A or if X is an element of A').

Ail-Shan wrote:
Mind you, pointing to a part of the model and claiming that 'that part isn't on so you are off the table' is going against KP's point that we are considering whole models, not just parts.

In any case, you are still arguing that we are off because X is an element of B, when all that the rules ask is that X is an element of A, or not an element of A'. As a further point, B is not a sub-set of A' because it contains values of X that are elements of AnB. Thus, just because X is an element of B doesn't mean that it's an element of A', and therefore X being an element of B is irrelivant (all we care about is whether X is an element of A or if X is an element of A').

'

Read below.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote: you have to have the whole base on the table.

This is you actually making things up and then trying to hold them up as actual rules.

No it is not.

ON IS INCLUSIVE. as per the rules. since we have a permissive rules set. (since it says on and not partially on)

On is not exclusive. as per the rules, since we have a permissive rules set. (since it does not say partially on)

on means on, on does not mean off.

therefore the model (note they say model, not any part of, or some of, or a little bit of) must be on the table. (the model, as in the whole model)

for something to be on the table it must not be off the table.

ON IS INCLUSIVE. as per the rules. since we have a permissive rules set. (since it says on and not partially on)

Again, you are arguing falsely. The requirement is that you are on (you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on). The contrary to this is that you are not on (not in the little circle that includes all things that are on). Partially on and partially off is a zone where you are in both little circles. Hence you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on, and not not in the little circle that includes all things that are on. It's quite clear (apparently you don't know set theory. Nothing against you, I just think that it's a perfect representation).

Ail-Shan wrote:

ON IS INCLUSIVE. as per the rules. since we have a permissive rules set. (since it says on and not partially on)

Again, you are arguing falsely. The requirement is that you are on (you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on). The contrary to this is that you are not on (not in the little circle that includes all things that are on). Partially on and partially off is a zone where you are in both little circles. Hence you are in the little circle that includes all things that are on, and not not in the little circle that includes all things that are on. It's quite clear (apparently you don't know set theory. Nothing against you, I just think that it's a perfect representation).

The requirement is that you are on. true! if you are partially on and partially off you are not 'ON' the table you are partially on which is not the same as being on. because partially on is partially off and you have to be on, not off.

it has to say you can be off the table to be able to be off the table.

since there aren't any defined rules we have to look at similar rules that set precedent about the board edge, such as falling back and deep striking.

and we can see by these examples that not fully on the board causes problems/mishaps.