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.

reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...

so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.

a model occupies the area of its base.

therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.

check and mate.

DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...

so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.

a model occupies the area of its base.

therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.

check and mate.

So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?

Yes or No please.

DeathReaper wrote: rules

DeathReaper wrote:check and mate

Rule One: Reserves. must move on.
Rule Two: Dangerous Terrain Test. immobilized out side the terrain.

Which of these is more specific and so the over ruling rule? Yes The DT Test is the more specific.

DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...

so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.

a model occupies the area of its base.

therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.

check and mate.

I'd like you to answer both Gwar!'s question and my own.

Gwar! wrote:
So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?

Yes or No please.

My own question still revolves around the word "on". On means supported by, or in contact with. For a model to be supported by or in contact with the table, it only needs to be even slightly supported by or barely in contact for it to count.

No where in the rules does it say that you can't have portions of the model off of the table. Show me where it does, because that's what your argument is based off of. Reiterating: On, partially or not, means on and therefore qualifies the models position.

Are you saying that partially on is not on?

If you ignore either of these posts, you prove your argument inherently wrong because you are failing to recognize valid counter-arguments.

DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...

so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.

a model occupies the area of its base.

therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.

So, under your... 'interperetation'... the reserves rules are completely nonfunctional.
Since a model must be entirely on the table at all times (according to this rule you claim exists) and the reserves rule gives no actual permission to break that rule.

But wait! You claim you CAN break this rule you claim is so important without strict permission... but then suddenly no longer can after the movement phase ends?
I'm just absolutely lost here... you're making no sense at all and breaking your own rules every time you defend your point.

Rephist - dont bother, the same argument has been repeatedly ignored by DR et al for 17 pages now.

DR - you still are (sub?)consciously qualifying all the statements you provide. You are adding words such as "fully" or "entirely" when none such rules exist.

In other words: not only do you not have checkmate, you've actually been playing noughts and crosses on the chess board.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...

so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.

a model occupies the area of its base.

therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.

check and mate.

So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?

Yes or No please.

Could not find the baneblade in any of the codex that i have, so i am not sure about that one.

I do not have the necron codex so i am not sure what rules it has. but it can deepstrike yes?

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...

so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.

a model occupies the area of its base.

therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.

check and mate.

I'd like you to answer both Gwar!'s question and my own.

Gwar! wrote:
So you claim that baneblades and monoliths can never come on from reserves?

Yes or No please.

My own question still revolves around the word "on". On means supported by, or in contact with. For a model to be supported by or in contact with the table, it only needs to be even slightly supported by or barely in contact for it to count.

No where in the rules does it say that you can't have portions of the model off of the table. Show me where it does, because that's what your argument is based off of. Reiterating: On, partially or not, means on and therefore qualifies the models position.

Are you saying that partially on is not on?

If you ignore either of these posts, you prove your argument inherently wrong because you are failing to recognize valid counter-arguments.

for sake of argument lest say on is as you say above. However the area of its base must move onto the table.

Area means? the whole base (answered that one for you)

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:reserve rules. a unit must move onto the table. each models move must be measured...

so the rules establish that models must move onto the table.

a model occupies the area of its base.

therefore the area of its base must move onto the table, all RAW.

So, under your... 'interperetation'... the reserves rules are completely nonfunctional.
Since a model must be entirely on the table at all times (according to this rule you claim exists) and the reserves rule gives no actual permission to break that rule.

But wait! You claim you CAN break this rule you claim is so important without strict permission... but then suddenly no longer can after the movement phase ends?
I'm just absolutely lost here... you're making no sense at all and breaking your own rules every time you defend your point.

I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times. when you end your move the area of the base must be on the table. since reserves say you move the model onto the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rephist - dont bother, the same argument has been repeatedly ignored by DR et al for 17 pages now.

DR - you still are (sub?)consciously qualifying all the statements you provide. You are adding words such as "fully" or "entirely" when none such rules exist.

In other words: not only do you not have checkmate, you've actually been playing noughts and crosses on the chess board.

RAW says a model is considered to take up an area of its base.

ergo the area of the base moves onto the table (area is an inclusive thing)

any other questions?

DeathReaper wrote:

Could not find the baneblade in any of the codex that i have, so i am not sure about that one.

I do not have the necron codex so i am not sure what rules it has. but it can deepstrike yes?

Ok for sake of argument, the baneblade is a massive tank, and is more than 6" in every direction. It can only move 6". It can't deepstrike. Can it enter play?

So you're saying that the monolith is forced to enter play in Dawn of War deployment?

DeathReaper wrote:

for sake of argument lest say on is as you say above. However the area of its base must move onto the table.

Area means? the whole base (answered that one for you)

Oh, deathreaper, wrong again. You're doing a lot of things wrong. You're adding words to rulebook that don't exist. (no where does it say, that the area of a models base must be fully on the table)

Area is merely the amount of space a shape takes up on a 2D plane. If any part of the area is on the table, that qualifies that the model is on the table. You are completely ignoring the argument and rephrasing your original argument in hopes that no one will realize that you're not actually disputing that partially on = on. Partially on means that you're not off.

Another mistake: most tanks don't have bases. So this entire thread of logic that you're using where models=base area is irrelevant as not all tanks have bases.

DeathReaper wrote:
I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times. when you end your move the area of the base must be on the table. since reserves say you move the model onto the table.

Again, see above. It does not say: when you finish moving your entire model must be on the table.

DeathReaper wrote:
RAW says a model is considered to take up an area of its base.

ergo the area of the base moves onto the table (area is an inclusive thing)

any other questions?

Again, above. Especially the part about tanks usually not having a base.

Also, "taking up space" and being qualified as on the table are two entirely separate things.

If you can't understand these simple concepts, then I have no hope for you as a competent rules reader/interpreter. Thank you though, I believe you have given me a wonderful idea for a signature. Hopefully you'll see it soon.

Rephistorch wrote:

Ok for sake of argument, the baneblade is a massive tank, and is more than 6" in every direction. It can only move 6". It can't deepstrike. Can it enter play?

So you're saying that the monolith is forced to enter play in Dawn of War deployment?

I couldn't not find the baneblade, what codex is it in?

again, i don't have a necron codex so i can not read the monolith's rules. therefore I can not formulate an opinion on said vehicle.

and P.3 a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.

reserves says when a reserve unit arrives it must move onto the table... each models move is measured from the edge of the battlefield

ergo models must move onto the table

or the area of the base must move onto the table.

(area of the base is the whole thing, not just a part of it)

and tanks don't have bases, thats fine too they use hull instead of base for measurement purposes. one would gather that they use the area of their hull instead of an actual base.

bottom line is that things can not be off the table and in play. if you think that they can then you have fun with that. but it seems it is intended for things to stay on the playing surface (if not, then why have a defined playing surface?)

thank you and goodnight.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
So, under your... 'interperetation'... the reserves rules are completely nonfunctional.
Since a model must be entirely on the table at all times (according to this rule you claim exists) and the reserves rule gives no actual permission to break that rule.

But wait! You claim you CAN break this rule you claim is so important without strict permission... but then suddenly no longer can after the movement phase ends?
I'm just absolutely lost here... you're making no sense at all and breaking your own rules every time you defend your point.

I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times. when you end your move the area of the base must be on the table. since reserves say you move the model onto the table.

...

DeathReaper wrote:So you can be off the table and in play then?

You're, yet again, claiming that the opposite of what you've been arguing is true.
Apparently in your view models can suddenly be off the table and in play, despite you clearly claiming otherwise quite recently. Apparently showing that your point is entirely ridiculous and makes the basic game unplayable just means you change your entire argument on a dime and keep going.

Also...

DeathReaper wrote:
I did not say the model must be entirely on the table at all times

DeathReaper wrote:
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.

This states you need to be on, not partially on.

you are allowed to be on the table, no rules state you can be partially on/off the table.
...
There is a clearly defined playing surface that you must be on.
...
A model must be on the table
...
If any part of the base is not on the table then that is against the rules.
...
since models must be on the table

I can quote about a dozen more times you did in fact clearly claim exactly that...

DeathReaper wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

Ok for sake of argument, the baneblade is a massive tank, and is more than 6" in every direction. It can only move 6". It can't deepstrike. Can it enter play?

So you're saying that the monolith is forced to enter play in Dawn of War deployment?

I couldn't not find the baneblade, what codex is it in?

It doesnt matter, as you have been told the rules it follows and the dimensions of the tank.

You have a tank thast is MORE than 6" across in all directions, and it may ONLY move 6" a turn. Under you entirely, 10000% incorrect argument you are stating, categorically, that this tank can never arrive from reserves and MUST be destroyed.

Hilarious. Truly, hilarious (see Apocalypse and Imperial Armour Volume 1)

DeathReaper wrote:again, i don't have a necron codex so i can not read the monolith's rules. therefore I can not formulate an opinion on said vehicle.

It is a vehicle just over 6" across (perfect square) and it may only ever move 6" a turn.

Under your rules you are requiring that it either a) always deepstrikes or b) is destroyed when it arrives from reserves by moving on from the edge of the table.

Yes, you can indeed formulate an opinion on both of these situations, as ALL pertinent details have been given to you.

Now please respond to the situations: will you always destroy a Baneblade when it arrives from reserve, or destroy a monolith unless it deepstrikes?

DeathReaper wrote:and P.3 a model is considered to occupy an area of its base.

reserves says when a reserve unit arrives it must move onto the table... each models move is measured from the edge of the battlefield

ergo models must move onto the table

or the area of the base must move onto the table.

(area of the base is the whole thing, not just a part of it)

Bzzzzt! Wrong! STOP adding qualifiers to words, you are MAKING RULES UP out of whole cloth here.

there is NO rule stating the ENTIRE (area of) base must move on. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You are now either lying in the hope we wont spot or too linguistically challenged to understand you are doing it.

DeathReaper wrote:and tanks don't have bases, thats fine too they use hull instead of base for measurement purposes. one would gather that they use the area of their hull instead of an actual base.

What area? The bottom? Nice attempt at trying to shoehorn your area fallacy into this area. Not going to wash though.

DeathReaper wrote:bottom line is that things can not be off the table and in play. if you think that they can then you have fun with that. but it seems it is intended for things to stay on the playing surface (if not, then why have a defined playing surface?)

thank you and goodnight.

Nope, bottom line is that you are making up rules, unwilling to answer perfectly clear questions (So, will you destroy all reserved baneblades?) and cannot admit that you are wrong on this.

DeathReaper wrote:I couldn't not find the baneblade, what codex is it in?

DeathReaper wrote:I can not formulate an opinion

That's kind of been the trend throughout this thread.

You have no idea what a Baneblade is, you don't have the Necron codex... why are you arguing rules again?

I mean, have you read the rulebook?

Just how deep does this font of ignorance run?

Actually I have to support Deathreaper here.

"On table" of course means "fully on table". At least it does not mean "partially on table".

And "on" does not mean "in contact with the surface", it means "above the surface". Otherwise an antigrav tank could never be on table (for the base is effectively ignored, yes that applies to the valkyrie and vendetta too except for measuring ranges, assaults and disembarking).

Concerning Baneblade and Monolith:

Is it a special rule, that a Monolith and Baneblade can only move 6"? Yes it is. So this rule can be ignored in case of arriving from reserves. So it should be able to cruise on the table. (Not flat out of course, because it is not fast).

And how do you handle a vehicle 0,0001" touching the table? and with other reserves going around the vehicle off table? This is ridiculous...

-Nazdreg- wrote:Actually I have to support Deathreaper here.

"On table" of course means "fully on table". At least it does not mean "partially on table".

[citation needed]

Sorry, y ou are making up rules here. If they had meant FULLY on do you think they would have qualified the otherwise unqualified statement?

[citation needed]

Sorry, y ou are making up rules here. If they had meant FULLY on do you think they would have qualified the otherwise unqualified statement?

Yes, they say "on" not "fully on" but they also do not say "partially on". So what is our point here? Throwing stones at enemy models claiming they are dead, because it does not say they are not?

The rules say "on."

Are you trying to tell us that "partially on" is not "on?"

Are you also going to try to tell us that an apple that is red, with a green stem, is not red? It's not fully red! CLEARLY IT'S NOT RED AT ALL OH GOD!

(cue universe imploding)

Are you trying to tell us that "partially on" is not "on?"

Yes I do. Because "partially on" is "partially on" and not "on".

Are you also going to try to tell us that an apple that is red, with a green stem, is not red?

Yes I do. Because it is not red, but red with a green stem. so if you compare an apple, which is red with your apple, you will discover that there is a difference.

And to make your comparison better: You take a green apple with a red stem and you declare it red?

So you are taking an unqualified statement and qualifying it

[citation needed]

No, seriously. You are taking general permission (be on) and ADDING WORDS TO THIS to make it say "fully on" when it deos not say fully on.

ON is an unqualified requirement that partially ON fully satisfies.

If you disagree then you dont understand how English works.

If you disagree then you dont understand how English works.

the classical killing argument against foreigners

well ok maybe it is so. I do not claim to understand the english language better than natives.

But I dont get what a qualified or unqualified requirement has to do with a specific language.

Furthermore I think partially on is the specification and not fully on.

Let me compare it again with the nice example given by SaintHazard:

An apple which is mostly green, but has a red stem is considered red?

Lets do it the other way round.

Yes, the term "on" has no specification in it. But the term "model" or "unit" has. So it is perfectly fine to place just one model of a unit on the table considering a unit on table? Then next time I will bring only one meltagunner over a flank because the whole squad would not fit there to shoot a vehicles back...
Ah yes, the rest of the unit is considered behind the meltagunner and can therefore move in next turn? Mhm... nice thing to try.
Ah yes and I bring the chimera 0,001" from the flank to avoid being shot at side armour from almost every angle. Great too...

OK maybe I am wrong concerning the english language, but I think I am not wrong concerning the problems your rule interpretation causes (physically too: how do you place your model?) and balancing and how it contradicts itself.

It does not contradict itself.

"On" is an unqualified statement, ie as loing as you are on at all you are 100% in support of this rule.

As to your argumetns about other members of the unit - please reread through this thread, they have been answered about 10 times now.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

If you disagree then you dont understand how English works.

the classical killing argument against foreigners

If you would like to know why partially on means on please see the link (on the word "on") in my signature.

The definition of the word is: supported by, or in contact with. If the model is supported in any way, or if any part of it is in contact with the table, then it is defined as being on the table in the English language.

Conversely, the definition of the word off is: not supported by, or in contact with. If a model is supported in any way, or if it is even slightly in contact with the table's surface, then it can not be off of the table.

This leads us to the conclusions that models can be on the table, even when they're not entirely on the table, and being on the table at all, means that you are not off of the table.

Please let me know if any of that was unclear.

Or, to once again have to use this image:


Is the ruler "on" or "off" the table.

ONE WORD ANSWER! Don't try and add qualifications when there are not any or bring in "partially". I am not asking that.

All I am asking for is one word, Is it "on" or "off"?

Answer that, and you answer this thread.

Gwar! wrote:All I am asking for is one word, Is it "on" or "off"?

Answer that, and you answer this thread.

It is simpler than that.
Is it "on", yes or no?

If you want to get all cat in a box and argue it is neither or both or somesuch; as long as you can say "yes" to the on part, it is on.

The definition of the word is: supported by, or in contact with. If the model is supported in any way, or if any part of it is in contact with the table, then it is defined as being on the table in the English language.

Conversely, the definition of the word off is: not supported by, or in contact with. If a model is supported in any way, or if it is even slightly in contact with the table's surface, then it can not be off of the table.

This leads us to the conclusions that models can be on the table, even when they're not entirely on the table, and being on the table at all, means that you are not off of the table.

This is a one sided argumentation. Allow me to do it the other way round, using your words and your logic:

The definition of the word off is: not supported by, or in contact with. If a model is not supported in any way, or if any part of it is even slightly not in contact with the table's surface, it is off table

Conversely the definition of the word on is: supported by, or in contact with. If the model is not supported in any way, or if any part of it is not in contact with the table, then it can not be on the table in the English language.

This leads us to the conclusions that models can be off the table when they're not entirely off the table, and being off the table at all, means that you are not on the table.


So we can define that a model is on the table and off the table at the same time if it is partially on / partially off the table.

Supporting was the word I looked for as I said something about "above the surface". And in contact with the surface means that it is supported by the surface. So we have parts who are not supported and therefore not on the table.
That means that the model is partially off table and therefore off table.

-Nazdreg- wrote:That means that the model is partially off table and therefore off table.

No, it is partially off.

Partially on is on. Partially off is NOT off. If it was off, then it couldn't be on.

Gwar; the partially on is easily disputed by partially off is off.


For my part I'm still seeing both sides as having equal measure for being correct here. Drop Pods as an example have a mishap table for falling off the board; what is lacking here is a defined rule set on approaching the particular issue. I'd 4+ it until something more defined comes along.


I was actually going to take a picture of that hammer/ruler trick WITH a Leman Russ, but I get slapped for mentioning the Valkyrie on a local forum and now can't post there ((yes, used the Valk and its enormous size to show how if it could only move six it would not be on; I guess I would have been okay if I used the Baneblade as an example there haha)).


Locally; the players want the Valkyrie to move 12" so that it is ENTIRELY on the board with its wings and tailbooms not hanging over the edge. If this is the case with the players than a tank SHOULD be destroyed if it can not make it on. Cause to me it would not make sense that a wing that is in the air can't be over the edge but a tank can float there on "imagined ground".

But then you run into the problem of not just super heavies, flyers or titans; but even your basic Land Raider would have trouble coming in on reserves with out having to spend a turn sideways IF it can fit sideways where you want it to come in as well.


One thing we do have to remember is that GW is far from infallible ((heh, spell checker kept changing it to say they were inflatable)); and we often have to make corrections between friends on how to make it fair for all present. And there are plenty of other occurrences in this game with defined rules where such an event as a tank getting immobilized off the board and not having the room to be deployed the model would be destroyed/removed. Disembarking is one of those rules that stings me time to time as I play heavy mechanized; though I'm going to have to look into that again now because I read somewhere in this thread that if its your own model that is blocking an exit point that they don't die if there's no room for them.

Dracheous wrote:Gwar; the partially on is easily disputed by partially off is off.

No, it isn't.

You cannot be "Partially off" without being "Partially on". If you are Partially off without being partially on, then you are not partially off, you are just off.

However, Partially on is still on, no matter how much is on.

Partially on is on. Partially off is NOT off.

OK perhaps "off" is not the same as "not on". But are you telling me that no parts of the vehicle are "not on" the table (which would require the vehicle to be "not on" the table)?

Off seems to be a more qualified thing as On then.

Gwar; that is an incorrect statement.

par·tial·ly (pärsh-l)
adv.
To a degree; not totally.

Adv. 1. partially - in part; in some degree; not wholly; "I felt partly to blame"; "He was partially paralyzed"



The ruler picture as an example is not totally on the table; nor is its support from the table entirely. There is a combination of forces through cantilevering pressure that holds the ruler. But while the ruler is not entirely on the table, it is not entirely off the table. Approx 95% of the ruler is not on the table; and approx 75% of the force which supports it is not from the table either. So in both cases there is more support from OFF the table than ON the table and thus more of it would be off the table, in which case I can say that a greater portion of that ruler is OFF the table and thus it is in part off the table; To which I can simply using the word partially as to a degree, and not entirely the ruler is not on that table.