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.

What?

We are not talking about forces or stuff like that.

5% is on the table. Therefore it is on the table.

It cannot be OFF the table, because if it was off the table, then 0% would be on the table. Since >0% is on the table, it is on the table.

It's not hard.

I also notice that, ONCE AGAIN, people have ignored my request for a one word answer.

Having lurked on this thread for 19 pages (My brain meats...they hurt) I too would like the opposition to the "on" crowd to answer Gwar!'s question.

Also where did the word "off" come from? The criteria is to move the models "on" the table. Our options then are that the model be "on" the table legally or "not on" the table and therefore not legally placed. The model is therefore either on the table or not on the table. It cannot both "be" and "not be" in a particular state. Off is not a state in regards to the deployment rules, it is the absence of a state which is "on" the board.

So the model (or the ruler), is it on the board or not on the board?

I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.

Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!

I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.

Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)

Mahtamori wrote:I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.

Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!

I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.

Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)

here ya go mah, ill give you the citations you are looking for.

P.94 under Arriving from reserve. a unit must move onto the table. each models move...

P.92 tells you how to deploy models at the start of a game. (in the deployment zone)

P.3 under measuring distances. a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.

the rules for being off the table are non-existent (except for deep strike, and falling back.) this is probably because everything references being on the table.

to sum up:

The models must move onto the table. or, as GW puts it:

The area of a models base must move onto the table.

if the area of the base is not on the table the must move onto the table has not been followed.

and gwar again that is not a simple yes or no question (and really has no relevance on the discussion)

and a baneblade is apoc, were not talking about apoc.

as for the Monolith, it can deepstrike.

I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.

Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.

SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.

Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.

I answered the question.

it is partially on and partially off the table.

the area of that rulers base is not on the table.

DeathReaper wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.

Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.

I answered the question.

it is partially on and partially off the table.

the area of that rulers base is not on the table.

and it matters that it is partially off why?

5% is on the table. Therefore it is on the table.

It cannot be OFF the table, because if it was off the table, then 0% would be on the table.

Again I turn your sentences around:

95% are off the table. Therefore it is off the table.

It cannot be ON the table, because if it was on the table, then 0% would be off the table.

Lets do it logical.

We have two opposites here. On the table and Off the table.

Off the table requires 0% of the model being on the table.

Therefore to justify the opposition On the table has to require 0% of the model off the table.

Easy, isn't it? Easy and simple.

Now we have the situation, where a model is partially on/partially off the table.

that means, that this model do not fulfil any of these requirements. It is neither off the table, nor on the table.
But it is certainly "not on" the table. It is also "not off" the table.

getting back to the rules:

We require the model to move onto the table (which implies it being on the table after the movement, Mahmatori).
And we require the model to be off the table in order to possibly be destroyed.

Therefore the model cannot legally be placed, and it cannot be destroyed because it is in fact not off the table and so it is actually in play, but just not legally placed.

My opinion again (as I think that there is no rule to solve this properly):

1. Avoid the problem if possible
2. Houserule it if necessary

moving it 0,0001" on the table declaring this a legal move brings too many problems:

-measuring distances to parts of the vehicle that are off the table
-moving reserves around the vehicle off the table afterwards
-allowing to move voluntarily like that (I like my russes moved like that with just the front armour on the board. I have 72" range anyways, you wont get any side armour and I will not take any space on the board.)
-physical placement of the model (ah you have the hammer construction handy? ok I wait until you did this properly and then call shenanigans for abusing time in a tournament and for all to have a good laugh... )

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.

Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.

I answered the question.

it is partially on and partially off the table.

the area of that rulers base is not on the table.

and it matters that it is partially off why?

the silly ruler pic has no bearing on the discussion, thats why it matters.

DeathReaper wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.

Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.

I answered the question.

it is partially on and partially off the table.

the area of that rulers base is not on the table.

You didn't answer my question.

Please, a simple YES or NO.

ONE WORD.

Is the ruler on the table?

Yes, or No. A Simple one word answer please. It cannot be both, it has to be one or the other. If it is on, then it is not off. If it is off, then it is not on.

Please DeathReaper, this is the 3rd or 4th time now, it's not a hard question.

Yes, or No?

If the ruler offends you so much, replace "Ruler" with "Baneblade" or "Monolith" in the same position as the ruler.

DeathReaper wrote:

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I think this conversation needs to go ahead and grind to a screeching halt until DeathReaper answers Gwar!'s question.

Because there's really no way he can answer the question without royally screwing over his own argument.

I answered the question.

it is partially on and partially off the table.

the area of that rulers base is not on the table.

and it matters that it is partially off why?

the silly ruler pic has no bearing on the discussion, thats why it matters.

No answer the question. Why does it matter if a model is partially off?

@Gwar!

Your ruler is not on the table. Period. (If you want it simple)

Nazdreg, the trouble with turning the sentence around is that it doesn't make sense. While, with 95% of the model off the table, the majority of the model is off the table, it is still on the table (as a similar comparison if only a part of you is in an illegal area, you are still in the illegal area. An example provided earlier was being only partially on the grass when your dad told you to keep off, he'll still consider you to be on the grass).

The reason why the phrase only works one way is because of the above. If you are partially on the table, you are satisfying being on the table. However, in order to be off the table, there must be no part of you that's on the table.

And the ruler actually is on the table, as a part of it is on the table.

@Ail-Shan

That means that off the table is not an opposite to on the table.

If this is not the case turning around works. You just seem to not want the third possibility.

as a similar comparison if only a part of you is in an illegal area, you are still in the illegal area. An example provided earlier was being only partially on the grass when your dad told you to keep off, he'll still consider you to be on the grass

Is off the table an illegal area? Yes...
Your tank is partially off the table? so you are partially in an illegal area and then you are in the illegal area.

The reason why the phrase only works one way is because of the above. If you are partially on the table, you are satisfying being on the table. However, in order to be off the table, there must be no part of you that's on the table.

This makes no sense to me. Well perhaps english just isnt logical. Maybe.

DeathReaper wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.

Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!

I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.

Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)

here ya go mah, ill give you the citations you are looking for.

P.94 under Arriving from reserve. a unit must move onto the table. each models move...

P.92 tells you how to deploy models at the start of a game. (in the deployment zone)

P.3 under measuring distances. a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.

the rules for being off the table are non-existent (except for deep strike, and falling back.) this is probably because everything references being on the table.

to sum up:

The models must move onto the table. or, as GW puts it:

The area of a models base must move onto the table.

if the area of the base is not on the table the must move onto the table has not been followed.

and gwar again that is not a simple yes or no question (and really has no relevance on the discussion)

and a baneblade is apoc, were not talking about apoc.

as for the Monolith, it can deepstrike.

It's all irrelevant since I got the answer I wanted, but I'd just like to point out that you actually referenced page 92...

In either case, I highlighted and underlined and put the relevant information in your post in italic.

That's right, the rules do not cover it. Therefore, if you follow the rules and end up in a situation where you have a part of the model outside the table, the rules are permissive and you have followed them - therefore the situation is acceptable.

Off is not always the logical negation of on, tghat is perhaps where you are going wrong.

You can be partially on; despite being partially "on", and therefore "on" as far as the rules are concerned, you are not "off" - because you are partially on.

while partiually on == on, for a given value of "on" (i.e. an unqualified one - note, DR would have you believe that "on" is qualified with the words "fully" or "entirely" - this is technically a lie) partially on /== off, as you have to be 100% "off" before you are actually "off" - at least as far as English AND maths AND logic are concerned.

This is what DR is ignoring, in the hope we will all go away. It isnt working, however.

Nazdreg - the ruler is ON the table, as it is 100% supported by tghe table. If you remove the tbale it falls., That gives you your answer.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@Gwar!

Your ruler is not on the table. Period. (If you want it simple)

So how is it staying up? If it were not on the table, it would be on the floor (presumably) because the table isn't holding it up...

Nazdreg - the ruler is ON the table, as it is 100% supported by tghe table. If you remove the tbale it falls., That gives you your answer.

What about removing the hammer?

so I can glue some things UNDER the table and declare them being ON the table, because the table holds them there? And do not argue with the glue...

But ok lets get beyond theory.

Off is not always the logical negation of on.

If this is the case, I move my opinion of your interpretation from "incorrect" up to "correct but impracticable". See my list of problems.

But I stay with the opinion: Avoid the situation...

same as closing an edge to negate reserves unless it is houseruled in any ways.

Wow this thread has gone from bad to much worse. It's really getting super flamey in here.

I apologize if a am flamey. I just want a playable possibility to work this problem out.
I do not intend to flame against people. I am only questioning an interpretation and it seems that I had a wrong starting point. I am perfectly ok with this.

-sigh-

Look, if it isn't on the table, then it is on the floor, not on the table.

It's not that difficult.

It is not ON the table, it is UNDER the table - it is supported by the glkue, which is supported by the table.

If you review your list of "issues" you will find that a) they arent issues at all and b) they have ALL already been dealt with - I was serious when I asked you to review the last 19 pages. Everything you have posited has been proven incorrect multiple times now.

DR - so you are answering that you would ALWAYS destroy a Monolith if it doesnt deepstrike? LOL! I love your inabiltiy to provide rules quotes that actually back up tyhat assertion. Making up stuff must be quite fun!

I was serious when I asked you to review the last 19 pages.

And I seriously went through them. I discovered some things, but nevertheless I don't consider this option playable.
Its a theoretical solution and can be used abusive to no balance at all.
But if you let me abuse it, it is ok

Is off the table an illegal area? Yes...

Actually no. Being off the table means you are not fulfilling the requirement of being on the table. If you read entirely through the BRB, you will find absolutely no reference saying that off the table is illegal, only that on the table is required (or at least "the game is designed to be played on").

As for off not being the reverse of on, that is true so long as there are only 2 option (the light is on or off for example).

I don't consider this option playable

I wouldn't say that it is unplayable, but annoying at least. Therefore were it to ever come up I'd make some house ruling on it (along the lines of just put the thing fully on the table and immobilize it there).

Well perhaps english just isnt logical.

This made me laugh. I agree with it.

Nazdreg = exactly what dont you consider playable?

You must bring the entire unit at least partially on the board, so that isnt an issue. You can still shoot at a vehicle partially "on" the board just fine, etc.

No issues have been found with playability so far, in contrst to the "unit is destroyed!" crowd who, with no rules or precedental backing consider the unit to be destroyed if it cannot get fully ontopt he table (and again, with DR et al entirely ignoring that they are lying when they say it must be fully on the table. Lying is accurate as the words "fully", "entirely" or any other qualification of the phrase "on" is EVER given)

nosferatu1001 wrote:It is not ON the table, it is UNDER the table - it is supported by the glkue, which is supported by the table.

If you review your list of "issues" you will find that a) they arent issues at all and b) they have ALL already been dealt with - I was serious when I asked you to review the last 19 pages. Everything you have posited has been proven incorrect multiple times now.

DR - so you are answering that you would ALWAYS destroy a Monolith if it doesnt deepstrike? LOL! I love your inabiltiy to provide rules quotes that actually back up tyhat assertion. Making up stuff must be quite fun!

I said nothing of the sort, i just simply said that you deploy it or keep it in reserve and deepstrike it.

to move it so that it is off the table is an illegal placement considering models (or area of the base) have to move onto the table.

since its a vehicle the area of the base should be the parts that touch the table.

the area of the base must be moved onto the table. that means that the whole base must be on the table.

the semantics of the word on have no relevance since the area of the base needs to be... (the area of the base includes every portion of said base.)

Ail-Shan wrote:

Is off the table an illegal area? Yes...

Actually no. Being off the table means you are not fulfilling the requirement of being on the table. If you read entirely through the BRB, you will find absolutely no reference saying that off the table is illegal, only that on the table is required (or at least "the game is designed to be played on").

As for off not being the reverse of on, that is true so long as there are only 2 option (the light is on or off for example).

and thus an illegal area...

Mahtamori wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:I showed the picture to a friend who just couldn't believe the ruler and hammer could stay in that position physically, so I took a photo featuring a screwdriver and a hammer. I hardly think posting that will help the debate, though.

Now, citations needed:
a) Where does it say a model must be on the table to be in play?
b) Where does it say what happens to a model that's not on the table?
No arguments or reasoning. Pages only, please. And don't even think about trying to use page 92, because it's not bleedin' on there!

I know I'm going to be ignored, like I always am in this debate, because I pose the difficult questions to answer.

Edit: Since the game is in 3D, if you say the ruler is only partially on the table, then I'd like you to explain how much of this model can ever be on the table (repeating Gawr!'s argument)

here ya go mah, ill give you the citations you are looking for.

P.94 under Arriving from reserve. a unit must move onto the table. each models move...

P.92 tells you how to deploy models at the start of a game. (in the deployment zone)

P.3 under measuring distances. a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.

the rules for being off the table are non-existent (except for deep strike, and falling back.) this is probably because everything references being on the table.

to sum up:

The models must move onto the table. or, as GW puts it:

The area of a models base must move onto the table.

if the area of the base is not on the table the must move onto the table has not been followed.

and gwar again that is not a simple yes or no question (and really has no relevance on the discussion)

and a baneblade is apoc, were not talking about apoc.

as for the Monolith, it can deepstrike.

It's all irrelevant since I got the answer I wanted, but I'd just like to point out that you actually referenced page 92...

In either case, I highlighted and underlined and put the relevant information in your post in italic.

That's right, the rules do not cover it. Therefore, if you follow the rules and end up in a situation where you have a part of the model outside the table[i][u], the rules are permissive and you have followed them - therefore the situation is acceptable.

and I highlighted and underlined and put the relevant information in your post in italic.

since this is impossible, since you can not have a part of the model outside the table. See the part where you move the area of the base onto the table? if any area of the base is not on the table then it is an illegal placement.

I referenced p.92 for completeness. since it covers deployment. and being in the deployment area.

and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.

DeathReaper wrote:and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.

Yes, it is a simple yes or no. Several other people have been able to answer this (some correctly, some incorrectly).

So, please, once again, answer YES or NO.

If you cannot even answer a simple Yes or No Question, why are we bothering to listen to your arguments on this?

-Nazdreg- wrote:
Again I turn your sentences around:

Even if it were true it does not help your case.

Asked if the model is on, you are answering it is off, while aknowledging it is on as well.

Nothing in the rules that matter care if anything is off.
Only if they are on.

This is why the ruler, the fire, and the wife matter.
And trying to say "yes" can be "no" doesn't matter at all.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:and Gwar that ruler is partially on and partially off the table, it exists in both states, it is not a simple yes or no answer.

Yes, it is a simple yes or no. Several other people have been able to answer this (some correctly, some incorrectly).

So, please, once again, answer YES or NO.

If you cannot even answer a simple Yes or No Question, why are we bothering to listen to your arguments on this?

for simplicity's sake lets say the ruler is 'on' the table. that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because the BRB states the area of the base must be on the table.

If the area (remember when dealing with an area we must take all parts of said area into account) is not moved onto the table then you have broken the rules.