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 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.

If X is an element of AnB, then X is an element of A.
In game terms, if the model is on the table and off the table (in other words partially on), the it is on the table.

You do not have to not be off the table. You have to be on the table. Only part of 'not on the table' is 'partially on the table' while the rest is fully 'not on the table.' Again the only requirement is that you are on the table (element of A) and if you are partially on the table (element of A and B) you are on the table.

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).

You made a very good point, I agree that set theory models this issue perfectly.

Look up the definition of on, it is used to describe something that is supported by something else. If a model is supported by the table, it is conclusively ON the table. Please note, being supported means only that any of the model's weight is held by the table.

A different definition that applies is that the model be in contact with the surface. Touching the surface of the table, is by definition, being on the table.

Is a model partially on the table in contact with, or being supported by the table in any way? Then for all intents and purposes, it is ON the table. It doesn't matter that it isn't "fully in contact, or fully supported". Being even slightly in contact or slightly supported appeases the the qualification of being "on" something, and therefore the rule.

Here's a link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on.

you guys are missing the point.

the point is, on is inclusive

since it does not say partially on, you must be on, and can not be off by this definition

so if any part is off, you have not met the on requirement.

There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.

and other rules set a precedent for what happens to models that move off the board/ come into contact with the board edge.

ergo we must take from it that on the board (fully not partially) is in play and off the board (fully or partially) is not in play, unless of course there is a special rule that lets you have an effect on the game while not in play.

DeathReaper wrote:you guys are missing the point.

the point is, on is inclusive

since it does not say partially on, you must be on, and can not be off by this definition

so if any part is off, you have not met the on requirement.

There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.

No, the point is that you're entirely fabricating these claims.

DeathReaper wrote:
and other rules set a precedent for what happens to models that move off the board/ come into contact with the board edge.

ergo we must take from it that on the board (fully not partially) is in play and off the board (fully or partially) is not in play

Really? We must use a vague unspecified precedent from inapplicable separate rules?
How about we just use the actual rules?

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:you guys are missing the point.

the point is, on is inclusive

since it does not say partially on, you must be on, and can not be off by this definition

so if any part is off, you have not met the on requirement.

There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.

No, the point is that you're entirely fabricating these claims.

Really? We must use a vague unspecified precedent from inapplicable separate rules?
How about we just use the actual rules?

What else have we to go by, but prior precedent in this case? since there are no clearly defined rules for this situation.

so, by your logic gork, i can be partially off the table and in play?

so a vehicle that is "on" as you put it can still fire the weapons that are on the vehicle yet clearly off the table?

simply put no. no fabrication needed.

A model must be on the table

by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.

having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.

what about the rules that set precedent about the table edge? we can not just ignore those rules simply because they go against what you guys are saying. I know they are not rules for this situation, but they are extremely similar in that they deal with what happens to models that hit /go over the board edge, thus the precedent can't be discounted in this case.

DeathReaper wrote:
We can not just ignore those rules simply because they go against what you guys are saying.
I know they are not rules for this situation

How about we ignore them because they aren't rules for this situation?
Also note that they aren't going against what we're saying... since they aren't rules for this situation.

DeathReaper wrote:
A model must be on the table

by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.

having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.

I can prove that the rules do not say this.
You can prove that you think that the rules say this.

See where the problem is?

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
We can not just ignore those rules simply because they go against what you guys are saying.
I know they are not rules for this situation

How about we ignore them because they aren't rules for this situation?
Also note that they aren't going against what we're saying... since they aren't rules for this situation.

DeathReaper wrote:
A model must be on the table

by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.

having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.

I can prove that the rules do not say this.
You can prove that you think that the rules say this.

See where the problem is?

Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.

The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then

DeathReaper wrote:

Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.

The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then

Hehe, if off means nothing then why does it matter if a model is partially off (since it doesn't say wholly on or entier base or anything like that).

Btw your grammer has improved as you've fought to improve your argument, capitals too!

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.

The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then

Hehe, if off means nothing then why does it matter if a model is partially off (since it doesn't say wholly on or entier base or anything like that).

Btw your grammer has improved as you've fought to improve your argument, capitals too!

Thank you.

My grammar is terrible, i know that, i have great mathematical skills, thus my grammar lacks considerably.

the bold text was sarcasm. which does not convey well over a message board it seems

it does not say wholly, it does not say partially either.

so we must conclude that 'the model' must means the whole model. and not some portion thereof.

No that's a conclusion you've draw not something I must conclude. In addition it's been proven a fallicious point, as to measure to vehicle we measure to the hull, and the point of hull to which we measure is not on the table - ergo an illegal placing.

DR - you are still inserting the word "fully" implicitly into your argument.

The ENTIRE pioint is that the word on has no qualification, and to add any qualification is against the rules

So partially on == on

partially on /= off

partially on is fine.

page 17 of this, and the answer is still the same as page 1.

KP - you argued that I had committed 2 fallacies. Hopefully Gorkas explanation of how you are incorrect in this assertion will satisfy you that neither exist.

DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the problem is that off means nothing and you think partially on is not off.

The model (whole model since it does not say any part of the model) must be on the table, if you cant see this then

I'm sorry but your definitions of the words "on" and "off" are just entirely wrong. Please read what I tried to tell you earlier. To expand on what nosferatu1001 has said, qualifiers don't matter.

M-W definition of off:
2
a : so as to be separated from support <rolled to the edge of the table and off> or close contact <blew the lid off> <the handle came off>

Partially on == on
partially on == partially off
partially on /= off

The definition for off and on are VERY specific in the english language. On means supported by, or in contact with. Off means separated from support. If any portion of the model is supported by the table, it is not off the table. It is partially off the table, but not off.

English language says:
Partially on means that the model is on.
Partially on means that the model is not off.

GW says:
The model must move on the table.
Being partially on the table qualifies as being on the table.

You must prove that partially on /= on. Even if part of the model is off of the table, the model is "on" the table because it is being supported, even partially, by the table. Being off is the absence of support from a surface, being even partially supported means that you are not "off" of a surface.

If someone tells you to get off of their property, and you leave one foot on their property, you are still ON their property, and therefore are not off of it.

i have great mathematical skills

Than do you know Set Theory? If so you've completely skipped over my argument 3 times now, and it makes complete sense. If not you've done the same, but reading it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

so a vehicle that is "on" as you put it can still fire the weapons that are on the vehicle yet clearly off the table?

simply put no. no fabrication needed.

A model must be on the table

by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.

having a part of that model off the table would negate the effects of the part that is on the table, since we can clearly see a piece of the model that does not fulfill the rule then it can only be an illegal placement.

This is full of contradictory statements. You claim that weapons which are off the table, but part of a model that is partially on the table cannot fire, because the weapons are off the table. You then go on to say "note not partial model." However just beforehand you were restricting the actions of part of the model, hence were considering a partial model (just the weapons that were off the table). And again, saying we're referring to a whole model supports us rather than you: If a part of a whole is on something, the whole is on (thus comes the 'on fire' argument, and my paralelle to being in area terrain). In addition while you are saying that we are considering the model as a whole, you are also saying that since part of the model (partial model) is off the table you aren't on the table.

in addition

by intrinsic value having a 'model' (note not partial model) so a whole model on the table would disallow any part of it to be off the table.

This is entirely false. Again, if a part of a whole is on, the whole is on. Again reference the fire argument as well as the magical physics ruler.

Another point, the rule is that you must be on the table, not that you must be not off the table. So there is no restriction to being off the table, only a requirement that you are on it. This is why the partially on is on argument works. If you were not allowed to be off the table, you would be correct. But since you are only required to be on (which incidentally means you can't be completely off) you can be partially on and still fulfill this requirement.

I'm almost certain the mods are looking down at this thread, likening it to a bunch of rabid dogs fighting one another in a dank, muddy pit, refusing to shoot the poor dogs and put them out of their misery because it's just too much fun to watch.

Doesn't Insianiak usually lock these things when they become as circular as this one has been for about fifteen pages now (at least)?

Mods are cruel.

SaintHazard wrote:I'm almost certain the mods are looking down at this thread, likening it to a bunch of rabid dogs fighting one another in a dank, muddy pit, refusing to shoot the poor dogs and put them out of their misery because it's just too much fun to watch.

Doesn't Insianiak usually lock these things when they become as circular as this one has been for about fifteen pages now (at least)?

Mods are cruel.

But it's just so fun.

I mean, lets look at it one more time.
We're trying to prove whether the vehicle is on the table.
The condition of the vehicle is:

DeathReaper wrote:on AND off the table

^Deathreapers own words

So, the vehicle is both on and off the table. That is, the vehicle is (on the table) and (off the table).
So the vehicle is...
On the table
and
Off the table

So, (On the table) is part of our starting set of conditions... and deathreaper admits it.
He now sets out to prove that the vehicle cannot possibly be on the table.

It's the logical equivilent of: Y is true. Therefore Y must be false.
How can you not want to watch that?

Even the coolest action scene in the world gets stale when you've watched it 15 pages- I mean, times.

Obviously you're correct, and DeathReaper is grasping at nonexistent straws to make his thing vaguely resembling a point.

But the bottom line is that his entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.

He is performing fallacio.

Even the coolest action scene in the world gets stale when you've watched it 15 pages- I mean, times.

Oh...I don't know about that.

Ail-Shan wrote:

Even the coolest action scene in the world gets stale when you've watched it 15 pages- I mean, times.

Oh...I don't know about that.

Set theory, while it looks like it can solve this problem, can not solve it. here is why:

Maybe i should explain it from a different angle.

P3. says that a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.

The model (area of its base) has to be on the table.

If the model (area of its base) is not on the table you have broken the rule since you need to place models on the table.

so this tells us that the area of its base (model) must be on the table.

If the area of its base is not on the table, we have broken RAW.

does anyone understand this?

DeathReaper wrote:does anyone understand this?

Some people also understand the actual rules.

Thread. . .must. . .die. . . .

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:does anyone understand this?

Some people also understand the actual rules.

I posted nothing but the actual rules as written.

Here's an interesting piece of linguistics for the thread: off is defined as a negation, as in "the light is not on".

Regardless, yes this thread really need to die.

DeathReaper, so far the best been come up with was the game is designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table. What we have is a game with a model stranded at the side of the table: everything works but god damn it's ugly.

Tell you what find and quote something that say "cannot be off the table" and I think every one will agree you are right (bar Gwar he bows to no man). Find something backing up destroying and I'll be bloody amazed.

(edit get the cannot be on/off the right way round ^_^)

Tri wrote:DeathReaper, so far the best been come up with was the game is designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table. What we have is a game with a model stranded at the side of the table: everything works but god damn it's ugly.

Tell you what find and quote something that say "cannot be off the table" and I think every one will agree you are right (bar Gwar he bows to no man). Find something backing up destroying and I'll be bloody amazed.

(edit get the cannot be on/off the right way round ^_^)

my last post sums up everything.

the area of the base needs to be on the table.

checkmate.

So... RAW... A Baneblade cannot deploy when moving onto the table, as it may only move 6" and will not fit "fully onto" the playing surface if you simply roll it forward. Pivoting around its centre point will not allow you to fit onto the table either so the Baneblade is destroyed. Either that or at it least cannot make that move and sits in reserves until the end of the game, where it counts as destroyed. Or since it has arrived from reserves and cannot be placed we stop the game and try again.

Another example, i have a unit entering the board on a large base. I need to enter at a certain point, the other areas are taken up by other units of impassable terrain. The point i am entering is filled with difficult terrain, so i roll my 2D6 and roll a double 1. I cannot fit all on my bases onto the table (even though all of my bases are partially ON the table) so i am destroyed? delayed? game stops?

DeathReaper wrote:my last post sums up everything.

In the last post DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:does anyone understand this?

Some people also understand the actual rules.

I posted nothing but the actual rules as written.

Gotcha.

Now please can we let this thread die? You are wrong and we are fine with that.

DeathReaper wrote:
P3. says that a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.

The model (area of its base) has to be on the table.

If the model (area of its base) is not on the table you have broken the rule since you need to place models on the table.

so this tells us that the area of its base (model) must be on the table.

If the area of its base is not on the table, we have broken RAW.

does anyone understand this?

I don't. Vehicles (which started this silly thread) typically don't have a base. You CAN measure from the hull, assuming you're measuring distance, but that's the only time I've ever seen anything telling you to take the hull into consideration.

DeathReaper wrote:
I posted nothing ...

^_^ Ignoring something to help your argument is wrong. There is no must be on the board and definitely no destroy if you cannot get on.

The game was designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table
You must move on from reserve.
If you move through into or leave difficult terrain take dangerous terrain test.
If you fail the DT test you are place just outside the terrain and immobilized
If a model could fall mark the spot (making sure the other player sees) and place it safely on the board replacing it as need.

And the most useful advice that all comes from WMS "Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!" ... in this case i think they would suggest marking out a 6' by 4' rectangle on the floor.

(If you want the exact quotes I'll dig them up but I and other have posted them all before.)

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
I posted nothing ...

^_^ Ignoring something to help your argument is wrong. There is no must be on the board and definitely no destroy if you cannot get on.

The game was designed to be played on a 6' by 4' table
You must move on from reserve.
If you move through into or leave difficult terrain take dangerous terrain test.
If you fail the DT test you are place just outside the terrain and immobilized
If a model could fall mark the spot (making sure the other player sees) and place it safely on the board replacing it as need.

And the most useful advice that all comes from WMS "Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!" ... in this case i think they would suggest marking out a 6' by 4' rectangle on the floor.

(If you want the exact quotes I'll dig them up but I and other have posted them all before.)

So even though the area of the base(the model) needs to be on, you are fine with breaking the rules and having it off the table. got it.

DeathReaper wrote:The same thing again

This is making my collection of image links useful though, I will give you that.

DeathReaper wrote:So even though the area of the base(the model) needs to be on, you are fine with breaking the rules and having it off the table. got it.

Page 88 "Standard mission were designed to be played on a 6' by 4' gaming surface.": that is the closest that any one has come to a rule yet not finding one. Were it a rule it would use phrases like "are" and "must". Not only that but the fact that other rules clearly have models doing things off the board including the reserve rule. If the reserve rule breaks this non-existing rule once why does it stop?

Right there is no must be on the table. At best there is a must move on and some times models may not make it: dangerous terrain does this for vehicles and Difficult terrain for the others.