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.

DeathReaper wrote:

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.

That is more than one word...

Do you speak English? I am not asking a hard question.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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.

That is more than one word...

Do you speak English? I am not asking a hard question.

Don't worry, he's already invalidated his argument by answering the question and saying that it's on. Now let's just back away slowly so as not to startle him.

And by THAT rule set; I can drive off the table and back on so long as PART of the model has room to stay on.

Ie. A solid building making an "alley" 2" wide along the board edge, I can now easily drive my tank through there. Because it is partially on.


I'm loving this rule set; where did the sarcasm ork go?

Dracheous wrote:And by THAT rule set; I can drive off the table and back on so long as PART of the model has room to stay on.
Ie. A solid building making an "alley" 2" wide along the board edge, I can now easily drive my tank through there. Because it is partially on.
I'm loving this rule set; where did the sarcasm ork go?

ChrisCP wrote:Ah, so you're trying to voluntarily place/move a model off the board, well find a rule saying you can do that then sure

Dracheous wrote:And by THAT rule set; I can drive off the table and back on so long as PART of the model has room to stay on.

Ie. A solid building making an "alley" 2" wide along the board edge, I can now easily drive my tank through there. Because it is partially on.


I'm loving this rule set; where did the sarcasm ork go?

Till Feburary this year it was ok to leave the board completely. Then GW add the FAQ and ...

Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played
clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers
know that the edge of the table is the end of the
world!

... Which is still not 'no models may be off' but does bar them from leaving once they're on. We could have another 5-10 pages debating what counts as moving off. In this case I would keep it simple: if you are on the table, you cannot move even partially off as you would be moving off the table. If you are off (partially or fully) the table you may move more on, or not move.

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

So you are stating that you would force the Necron player to ALWAYS deepsrike if he wants to keep it in reserve?

Really? You dont see that you are illegally removing a deployment option from the necron player?

DeathReaper wrote: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.

Thats fine, except the model isnt movingt OFF the table. Partially on /== Off. You have been shown how this is true:

Linguistically
Mathematically
Logically

Yet still you persist in trying to say black is white. It is VERY impressive that you will stick to your guns in spite of people who understand not only rules but the English language as well disagreeing with you. Ostrich technique so far.

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

CITATION NEEDED.

Please provide rules stating this.

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

CITATION NEEDED

Please provide rules stating the ENTIRE area of the base must be moved onto the table. You have consistently failed to do so.

DeathReaper wrote: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.)

BZZZT wrong, see above.

Face it DR: you argument falls flat because you are adding words to the rules in order to "prove" your argument. Qualifying an unrestricted statement like "on" by adding fully / entirely / etc is WRONG. Changing tactic suddenly and deciding that, just because a model is defined as occupying the area of their base, that somehow this alters the rules for reserves - because you are still utterly unable to STOP adding words to rules. Here you are adding words to state the entire area of the base must be on, despite no such rule existing.

And lastly the HILARITY where you ENTIRELY make up rules regarding vehicles, arbitrarily deciding that everything that touches the table must be on the tbale, presumably to try to pretend your initial argument (all of the hull must be on the table, impossible for 3D structures) never happened.

Seriously - either you are an incompetent troll or you cannot understand plain and simple rules. Not sure which.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

So you are stating that you would force the Necron player to ALWAYS deepsrike if he wants to keep it in reserve?

Really? You dont see that you are illegally removing a deployment option from the necron player?

DeathReaper wrote: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.

Thats fine, except the model isnt movingt OFF the table. Partially on /== Off. You have been shown how this is true:

Linguistically
Mathematically
Logically

Yet still you persist in trying to say black is white. It is VERY impressive that you will stick to your guns in spite of people who understand not only rules but the English language as well disagreeing with you. Ostrich technique so far.

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

CITATION NEEDED.

Please provide rules stating this.

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

CITATION NEEDED

Please provide rules stating the ENTIRE area of the base must be moved onto the table. You have consistently failed to do so.

DeathReaper wrote: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.)

BZZZT wrong, see above.

Face it DR: you argument falls flat because you are adding words to the rules in order to "prove" your argument. Qualifying an unrestricted statement like "on" by adding fully / entirely / etc is WRONG. Changing tactic suddenly and deciding that, just because a model is defined as occupying the area of their base, that somehow this alters the rules for reserves - because you are still utterly unable to STOP adding words to rules. Here you are adding words to state the entire area of the base must be on, despite no such rule existing.

And lastly the HILARITY where you ENTIRELY make up rules regarding vehicles, arbitrarily deciding that everything that touches the table must be on the tbale, presumably to try to pretend your initial argument (all of the hull must be on the table, impossible for 3D structures) never happened.

Seriously - either you are an incompetent troll or you cannot understand plain and simple rules. Not sure which.

First citation:
If you notice i said SHOULD
since its a vehicle the area of the base should be the parts that touch the table.
I.E. the base is the part of a model that supports the rest of the model.
thats just logic.

Second citation:
P.94
Arriving from reserves: when a unit arrives it must move onto the table. Each models move is...
P.3
Measuring distances: a model is considered to occupy the area of its base.
so we have established that models move onto the table from p. 94, and models cover a specific area P.3

put them together and we have

each model in a given unit moves onto the board. or move the area of its base onto the board.

Please find out what area means, then talk to me again.

Please find out what ONTO means, and talk to us ALL again.

Does onto mean fully onto? If you move part of the base onto the board you have moved the model onto the board.

Does area require ALL of the area of the base? No?

Well amazing, you're still adding words to rules

Edit: just noticed your "logic" idea. Lol, you have NO idea what you're talking about.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please find out what ONTO means, and talk to us ALL again.

Does onto mean fully onto? If you move part of the base onto the board you have moved the model onto the board.

Does area require ALL of the area of the base? No?

Well amazing, you're still adding words to rules

Edit: just noticed your "logic" idea. Lol, you have NO idea what you're talking about.

Not adding a single word, the words the BRB uses does it all.

lets see, the area of the base needs to be on the table.

that is easy to understand. the area of the base (the area includes the whole base) must move onto the table.

Simple really.

it seems you are the one that is trying to refute this, and you have been proven wrong logically.

Thank you and goodnight.

You are still adding "fully" onto in order to justify your stance

As you have been told 100 times now, you cant do this.

Nothing requires that the ENTIRE area of the base is on (to) the table - you have simply made that up. Your (the area includes the whole base) is simply making up rules that dont exist.

But carry on, you are convinced youre right, everyone else who can actually READ the rules and avoid adding words is actually correct. You're wrong, and I think you even realise it, but seem to thinkl you will "save face" by continuing to argue an untenable position.

Tri wrote:
... Which is still not 'no models may be off' but does bar them from leaving once they're on. We could have another 5-10 pages debating what counts as moving off. In this case I would keep it simple: if you are on the table, you cannot move even partially off as you would be moving off the table. If you are off (partially or fully) the table you may move more on, or not move.

First I think its slowed to go this route; HOWEVER, by the logic that partially off is still on, you would NOT be breaking that FAQ ruling. Because the tracks of the tank, ((or wheels, etc etc etc)) are still touching the board by a fraction and thus only partially off and thus still "on."

Except you are not given permission to move off the board, you can only move off when told you can (permissive ruleset)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you are not given permission to move off the board, you can only move off when told you can (permissive ruleset)

But then are you off the table if you are partially off?

No, but you are moving off. Where is your permission to do so?

I would not moving off the table as I would still be partially on and that is still on. So I would be navigating the table using the "partially on is still on" and "partially off is still on" explanations that is being used to say that a tank is not destroyed coming in.


Remember Nos, I think be able to drive along the edge is slowed. But the problem is, to allow the tank to survive because it is "partially off is still on" would open up a huge can of worms with people who have far more time than I to lawyer rules into finding some nice cheesy ways to get advantages.


BUT if the partially off is still on was a written ruleset, then a model COULD do exactly what I am suggesting when in its movement phase.


Where is the rule that states must be "fully" on?

That was the point - reserves allows you to move across the edge of the board, and does not require you to move fully on

You however have not shown any permission to be able to move partially off. Without permission to move partially off you cannot do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That was the point - reserves allows you to move across the edge of the board, and does not require you to move fully on

You however have not shown any permission to be able to move partially off. Without permission to move partially off you cannot do so.

Sorry but you're adding words there to the FAQ; it did not say partially off it said "off" and off would ONLY be 100% off. By this threads argument.

Reserves you are just asked to move on. There for you can be any degree of on. 100% down so long as its great then 0%.

General moving you cannot move off the table. There for whenever you move your ending percentage (on the board) must be greater or equal to your starting percentage (on the board) because if its less that would mean you are moving off the board.

The two rules together so that you can be place 100% off the board and move on.

Tri wrote:Reserves you are just asked to move on. There for you can be any degree of on. 100% down so long as its great then 0%.

General moving you cannot move off the table. There for whenever you move your ending percentage (on the board) must be greater or equal to your starting percentage (on the board) because if its less that would mean you are moving off the board.

The two rules together so that you can be place 100% off the board and move on.

But WHERE is that written in the rules concerning reserves moving on? And if it is only based on the argument that partially on is still on; then the same argument CAN be made about moving board edge because you are in fact still moving ON the board as per the understanding that partially on is still on the table.


Look, its the EXACT same argument you are making. In fact, no one's been able to tell me yes or no if the model is in fact on or off the board if the vehicle drives along side the table edge. And if it IS "off" then so too would the reserve tank trying to get in. If it is "on" than so too would the reserve tank trying to get in.


Its a flawed argument that has no equal and opposite reactions.

You can move on any degree as that is moving on.
If you move off by any degree you've broke the rule not to move off.

Ah, but the FAQ does not state "fully" or "partially"; nor does the rule set on entering the game play.

So if it is extrapolated that when moving OFF it can not be partially, at what point are we able to make the assumption that the opposite is correct with the same sentence structure for moving on?

You have yet to show permission that allows you to move off the board, even partially.

Reserves ONLY CARES ABOUT MOVING ON because that is what therule says: you move onto.

Moving in general does NOT give you permission to move off, or even partially OFF, the board - so again: please show permission to move even partially OFF the board.

Dracheous wrote:Ah, but the FAQ does not state "fully" or "partially"; nor does the rule set on entering the game play.

So if it is extrapolated that when moving OFF it can not be partially, at what point are we able to make the assumption that the opposite is correct with the same sentence structure for moving on?

No it doesn't because that doesn't matter.
1)There is no rule that says you cannot be off the board Or that a model must be on.
2) A model half on the board is both on and off.
3) For Reserves a model must move on. To for fill that the model must at least move partially on.
4) In general when moving a model cannot move off the table. (This is where i can see people having problems) If a models can found to be less on the board then when it started, this would mean the model is moving off and any degree of moving off is breaking the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have yet to show permission that allows you to move off the board, even partially.

Reserves ONLY CARES ABOUT MOVING ON because that is what therule says: you move onto.

Moving in general does NOT give you permission to move off, or even partially OFF, the board - so again: please show permission to move even partially OFF the board.

You're adding that part to the rules; it does not state partially or fully in the FAQ. Please, show me where it states that partially is included.


So again; why is it your SAME argument FOR a tank to survive being off in limbo; beyond the END OF THE WORLD as we all are to treat it not apply to the SAME tank driving the opposite way.


This argument is doomed to go in circles; as far as I'm concerned if you failed to make it onto the table from the reserves the vehicle is lost; either it didn't get the right GPS units and drove the wrong way; got hung up outside the board where it was unable to affect the game. Or the driver just went and an hero'd himself.


The problem is that if I make the exact same argument you guys are making, and it IS the exact same argument you say it is wrong to view it that way. Because in BOTH cases "partially" and "fully" are words being added to the written rules for either side of the debate.

As for showing you permission to drive FULLY off the table; I needs none because I am not trying to do this. Showing you permission to drive partially off the table, well you gave it to me when you state that partially on is still on. As I would like to see the written rule saying that you CAN cantilever over the end of the world. Again, doomed to go in circles and thus best dealt with as a 4+ unless a friendly game where likely just let the thing on but immobilized at the table edge.

Dracheous wrote:Ah, but the FAQ does not state "fully" or "partially"; nor does the rule set on entering the game play.

So if it is extrapolated that when moving OFF it can not be partially, at what point are we able to make the assumption that the opposite is correct with the same sentence structure for moving on?

Moving on is explicitely allowed, and in fact required with reserves. During this allowance/requirement moving involving "off" is not disallowed, or every single non-DS model is destroyed by moving on.

Moving off is explictely disallowed, even partially--when not moving on. (Moving onto the table is more specific than "moving")

This distinction is really not confusing.

To move on, the model must be (at least partially) off, to move off, the model must be (at least partially) on.

To "move on" does not require 100%. To say otherwise is actually distorting the truth.
To "move off" does not require 100%. To say otherwise is actually distorting the truth.

They do not, however, apply at the same time.

When off the table and moving on, a model is moving on.
When on the table and moving off, a model is moving off.

When a model is doing either, it is not doing both, but may very well end its move in a state where both "off" and "on" apply.
The restriction in the rules is for how you move there, not on how you end there.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracheous wrote:You're adding that part to the rules; it does not state partially or fully in the FAQ. Please, show me where it states that partially is included.

Been covered, the onus is on proving that being on requires 100% (See: fire, wife, ruler, English, etc.)

Dracheous - and now you are repeating what was fully covered in the previous 20 pages.

"onto" is not a qualified statement; therefore BOTH partially AND fully onto the table both satisfy this requirement.

Also, if you will pay attention, I have not referenced the FAQ. I am simply asking you: show me permission to move even partially Off the table.

Still waiting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still adding "fully" onto in order to justify your stance

As you have been told 100 times now, you cant do this.

Nothing requires that the ENTIRE area of the base is on (to) the table - you have simply made that up. Your (the area includes the whole base) is simply making up rules that dont exist.

But carry on, you are convinced youre right, everyone else who can actually READ the rules and avoid adding words is actually correct. You're wrong, and I think you even realise it, but seem to thinkl you will "save face" by continuing to argue an untenable position.

Please look up what area of the base means and you will see that i am correct.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are still adding "fully" onto in order to justify your stance

As you have been told 100 times now, you cant do this.

Nothing requires that the ENTIRE area of the base is on (to) the table - you have simply made that up. Your (the area includes the whole base) is simply making up rules that dont exist.

But carry on, you are convinced youre right, everyone else who can actually READ the rules and avoid adding words is actually correct. You're wrong, and I think you even realise it, but seem to thinkl you will "save face" by continuing to argue an untenable position.

Please look up what area of the base means and you will see that i am correct.

Except you are not...

Nor have you answered my question... Please answer it otherwise I will be forced to disregard your posts in this argument.

DR - nope, you really are not, in any way shape or form "correct"

So, is the ruler on the table or off the table? One word answer please.

Gwar! wrote:otherwise I will be forced to disregard your posts in this argument.

Really? Just now?!