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.

I'm sorry Nosferatutu, you will need to provide a rules reference in the BRB (or a codex, if you desire) to prove that you are, in fact, allowed to move models partially on the table when it is well within its ability to move fully onto the table (by pivoting, moving faster, etc.).

The burden of proof here is on you, now prove it.

ajfirecracker wrote:Therefore it cannot still be off the table.

Why?

RxGhost wrote:I'm sorry Nosferatutu, you will need to provide a rules reference in the BRB (or a codex, if you desire) to prove that you are, in fact, allowed to move models partially on the table when it is well within its ability to move fully onto the table (by pivoting, moving faster, etc.).

The burden of proof here is on you, now prove it.

Already have done, if you'd bothered reading the posts.

Additionally please be more precise: "fully" is a word that never appears in the reserves rules for arriving on the table, unless you add the words in erroneously. I have also shown that partially on(to) satisifies "on". So, I have my permission, you now need to back up your assertion that "fully" is required, except so far no one has been able to do so.

RxGhost wrote:I'm sorry Nosferatutu, you will need to provide a rules reference in the BRB (or a codex, if you desire) to prove that you are, in fact, allowed to move models partially on the table when it is well within its ability to move fully onto the table (by pivoting, moving faster, etc.).

The burden of proof here is on you, now prove it.

He has Proven it. Please read before posting.

kirsanth: If it is still off the table it has not moved on.

(This is most obvious if you simply leave the model sitting under the battlefield/in its case, but still true if you put the tip of the hull touching the board edge)

You're not allowed to move models off the table (per the FAQ), so you can't stop your move before being fully on. This is because the model counts as having started on the table (you measure as if from the board edge) except for special rules which tell you to count models coming from reserves differently.

Why would you think you could occupy any area other than the gaming surface? There's simply no rule to this effect. Nosferatu has not shown that this is allowed, he has merely shown that the reserve rules in particular fail to make the point explicit. This does not constitute a permission. You may satisfy reserve requirements while still failing to satisfy general requirements (such as models being on the table).

If you have moved onto the table, you have fulfilled the requirement to move onto.

It may be off the table as well, but that doesnt cancel out being on the table like some form of mathematical equation.

ajfirecracker wrote:kirsanth: If it is still off the table it has not moved on.

(This is most obvious if you simply leave the model sitting under the battlefield/in its case, but still true if you put the tip of the hull touching the board edge)

That has no bearing on the conversation.
The discussion was about moving onto the table, as opposed to not moving onto the table - which you mentioned.

Again, there are vehicles longer than 6". Vehicles are to "move onto the table as normal", when coming from reserves. Even, asn especially large vehicles - as per the reserves rules.

If you can position the vehicle such that only part of the vehicle is on the table, could you not later pivot the vehicle, taking it off the table altogether and preventing assaults?

ajfirecracker wrote:If you can position the vehicle such that only part of the vehicle is on the table, could you not later pivot the vehicle, taking it off the table altogether and preventing assaults?

You cannot move it off the table.
You can move it onto the table.

How about just having a tiny portion of the hull over the table, such that only 1 enemy can get into BTB? Is that legal?

Sorry this took a few, I'm at work.

BRB Pg. 94 "Arriving from reserve" states that the model must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge.

If you have not moved 100% of the model onto the table, how can you possibly satisfy this rule?

You cannot deploy/deep strike/infiltrate less than an entire unit, how could you deploy less than an entire vehicle (which is also a unit)?

RxGhost, the claim being advocated (which I disagree with) is that having any portion of the vehicle on the table counts as having the vehicle on the table.

No one is claiming that the vehicle is not deployed.
?!?!
Except the folks saying that it cannot move onto the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As I play Tyranids, this also applies to Hierophants, Hierodules, Harridans, and at least one Trygon.

I realize the Apoc-ness of it, but again, I play Tyranids.

When a model moves normally, it can move up its maximum move. WMS is one of the few true restrictions on this, as well as moving off of the table.
Moving on, while debatable, is clearly allowed.
Moving partially on is moving on - as there is no stipulation, outside WMS perhaps, as to what else happens.
Outside of Tyranids,

kirsanth wrote:Again, there are vehicles longer than 6". Vehicles are to "move onto the table as normal" when coming from reserves, even and especially, large vehicles - as per the reserves rules.

I know Aj, that's my point of contention as well. If you deploy in that manner (not fully on the table) then you are not playing by the rules. You have not deployed the unit legally as per the rules allow and you have not made a legal move.

Since there is no condition in the entire ruleset that I have ever seen or read that allows this kind of 'deployment' (and remember, we're looking for rules that ALLOW things here) I'm sticking with my reading, that you cannot deploy less than 100% of your unit...and I'm not adding things by ommission either.

And let's not forget that it is within the Land Raider's ability to move fully onto the table, you just might not be able to squeeze as many shots out of it as you'd like.

You are adding a requirement in that is simply not present: you are requiring that 100% be on the table, which can *only* be the case if the rules state.

As the rule only requires "onto" as soon as I put the model so it is touch the table surface I have complied with the rule. You cannot show this to be otherwise unless you can show that the rule explicitly states "fully" or some other qualification of the word "onto". "onto" by itself is satisifed by simply putting the model partially "onto"

If you don;t believe this this isn't my fault, you simply do not understand English. You would have, if you'd bothered to read the thread, noted that I already provided that quote and it does not help your case at all, it simply proves mine.

So unless you have a new definition of "onto", or some other rules quotes, then you don't have anything to disprove my argument.

No Colonel Sanders, you're wrong.

You insist that I'm adding a requirement that isn't present, when in fact...you are.

By insisting that the rules don't say "fully" you feel that this entitles you to play in a way that is not consistent with the content of the book, it's rules as written and the spirit and intent of the game.

You can insult my understanding of English if you want, you can even put semi-colons where apostraphes shuld go, but that doesn't make you right.

nosferatu: Don't forget that the reserve requirement is not the only ruleset in play here. You've got general movement rules and meta-rules like permissive rulesets. You may satisfy the reserve requirement and fail to satisfy reserve requirements or meta requirements such as having permission to make a particular action.

So, even if you are not required by the reserve rules to place your model fully on the table, you may be required to do so by general movement rules or permissive ruleset restrictions.

On permissive rulesets: We know that you may move a model onto the table and thereby satisfy the "arriving from reserves" conditions. What rule allows you to place the model (in general) partially on the table and partially off?

The problem is that 'partially on' throws up EVEN MORE problems.

Let's assume that Nosferatu's reading is correct, and that since the model is partially on the table, this counts as 'on' and is legal.

Let's also assume that I have a 7'x5' kitchen table, and we play on the 6'x4' in the middle, leaving us a 6" rim around the edge.

By this reading, I can legally choose to bring my Basilisk only 1" onto the playing area. The rear and side fire arcs are practically nonexistent, so I get an advantage when people shoot at me. The barrel of my Earthshaker cannon is still on the table, so i can fire it. And I'm 5" further away from all your weapons. Even better, I can move the Basilisk left and right, as long as i don't go further off the table, a long as I'm still partially 'ON', and don't 'move off'.

By this reading of the rules, all of the above is perfectly legal.

On the other hand, we have an alternate reading of the rules which poses fewer problems - we read 'on' as meaning 'entirely on' and say that Land Raiders must move at Cruising speed. Easy, and breaks less other rules.

ArbitorIan wrote:By this reading, I can legally choose to bring my Basilisk only 1" onto the playing area. The rear and side fire arcs are practically nonexistent, so I get an advantage when people shoot at me. The barrel of my Earthshaker cannon is still on the table, so i can fire it. And I'm 5" further away from all your weapons. Even better, I can move the Basilisk left and right, as long as i don't go further off the table, a long as I'm still partially 'ON', and don't 'move off'.

While I can see where you are coming from, and where you are going, I think it is a bit off.
Furthur movement phases, moving sideways will move you off, and so is disallowed. Moving FROM off the table is expressly allowed. And in fact that movement is done normally - ignoring restrictions that could prevent movement.
As for arcs of fire. . . how does that change from moving so the back is against the table edge? Either way only assaults can hit its rear, and LOS can be drawn to the sides for shooting.

ArbitorIan wrote:The problem is that 'partially on' throws up EVEN MORE problems.

Let's assume that Nosferatu's reading is correct, and that since the model is partially on the table, this counts as 'on' and is legal.

Let's also assume that I have a 7'x5' kitchen table, and we play on the 6'x4' in the middle, leaving us a 6" rim around the edge.

By this reading, I can legally choose to bring my Basilisk only 1" onto the playing area. The rear and side fire arcs are practically nonexistent, so I get an advantage when people shoot at me. The barrel of my Earthshaker cannon is still on the table, so i can fire it. And I'm 5" further away from all your weapons. Even better, I can move the Basilisk left and right, as long as i don't go further off the table, a long as I'm still partially 'ON', and don't 'move off'.

By this reading of the rules, all of the above is perfectly legal.

On the other hand, we have an alternate reading of the rules which poses fewer problems - we read 'on' as meaning 'entirely on' and say that Land Raiders must move at Cruising speed. Easy, and breaks less other rules.

I can brake it further ... a Battle wagon with red paint moves 1" it still counts as stationary so the looters can fire this turn. As above all thats showing is the AV14 front

Where does it say LOS has to be drawn only on the table?
I understand blast will not hit, but that is the only one I see.

Multi-table games are included in suggestions, and some of those SUGGEST (or rather, require) shots across table edges.

Multi-table game use all sorts of special rules, as do almost all the special missions and campaigns suggested. They're really not a good source to cite for normal games' rules.

RxGhost wrote:No Colonel Sanders, you're wrong.

You insist that I'm adding a requirement that isn't present, when in fact...you are.

LOL. Nope, that is utterly incorrect.

"onto" is the only requirement in this, the only one at all. "fully" would be adding a requirement, as would adding in "partially", however the lack of either means that BOTH can fulfil the "onto" requirement. "onto" is the superset, as it has no additional restrictions place on it.

BTW that was quite ridiculous an argument: saying that the lack of further requirements is adding a requirement in? lolwut?

RxGhost wrote:
By insisting that the rules don't say "fully"

You mean by reading the book and finding that the don't say fully? Wow silly me to "insist" that the book says what it does!

RxGhost wrote:
you feel that this entitles you to play in a way that is not consistent with the content of the book, it's rules as written and the spirit and intent of the game.

The rules for ruins are not consistent with the rest of the rules for movement. Does this mean we can ignore them? The rules for Jump Infantry are not consistent with the rest of the books rules on infantry either, so we should ignore these as well!

The problem with your statement is that a) consistency is irrelevant here: when one rule is more specific than another it cannot be fully consistent; b) YOU are ignoring the actual rules and inserting words that do not exist and making up requirements that are absent; and c) spirit and intent have no place ina strict rules discussion when discussing the actual rules. You are close to breaking tenet 7 btw, as spirit starts to bring in TMIR. Also it shows *incredible* hubris to state that you are the arbiter of the games spirit or intent, as you have nothing to back you up on either and nor, do I suspect, are you Alessio.

RxGhost wrote:
You can insult my understanding of English if you want, you can even put semi-colons where apostraphes shuld go, but that doesn't make you right.

Yes, typos are really consistent or on a level with not understanding that "onto" is less restrictive than "fully onto", and that "partially onto" is sufficient to satisfy "onto". You also mispelled "apostrophe", which is quite amusing.

Now to people with coherent arguments

We know that "partially onto" satisfies "onto", and your only other directive is to move "normally" onto the table. Nowhere in movement is "moving onto the table" defined, you are only told you cannot move off the table. Nothing in those sections places a requirement that the model is fully | entirely | totally on the table in order to perform actions or to be placed legally.

It also maky cause some issues, however the only time you are given permission to move onto the table is in reserves, therefore if you want to pertially move on and then move in a later turn you have to move ahead directly until the rear clears the table - otherwise parts must "swing" off the table as you move. This is quite limiting so would negate some of the advantage.

ALso, nowhere does it say LOS only applies on the table: If you can see the model you can shoot it. The only issue here would be with blast weaponry, where it specifically states that the centre of the hole over the end of the table is a miss. No other rules place requirements that I can find.

Tri: the RPJ rules states it counts as moving 1" less than it does: if you move 1" you have still moved 0", and therefore not remained stationary.

If you do not move onto the table, you are moving off the table. This you are not allowed to do.

Whether or not it causes issues is a conversation point, but it has no bearing on what the rules say.

However, you may not move off the table implies that you may not move your model such that it passes through "off the table" or ends its move "off the table". There's no reason I see to believe that the "moving onto" restriction would free you from the second, especially if you take the permissive nature of the rulesets into account.

The RaW is simple: The vehicle starts off of the board. You move the front of the hull from just off of the board 6" for Combat speed. If you moved more than 6" it is cruising speed. 6-12" is cruising speed plain and simple. From the very front to the edge of the board has been specified to be 7" by the OP. Only a single weapon and all defensive weapons should have been able to be fired.

RxGhost wrote:If you do not move onto the table, you are moving off the table. This you are not allowed to do.

ajfirecracker wrote:However, you may not move off the table implies that you may not move your model such that it passes through "off the table" or ends its move "off the table".

False assumptions.
It is not an either or.
Moving partially onto the table is easily shown to be moving onto the table.
Moving partially off of the table requires being (at least partially)on the table, and is still disallowed - explicitely (unless I am missing something there is no debate on this, just flamebait examples).
Also - moving onto the table actually requires moving 'through "off the table"'.

rogueeyes wrote:The RaW is simple: The vehicle starts off of the board. You move the front of the hull from just off of the board 6" for Combat speed. If you moved more than 6" it is cruising speed. 6-12" is cruising speed plain and simple. From the very front to the edge of the board has been specified to be 7" by the OP. Only a single weapon and all defensive weapons should have been able to be fired.

I know, right? It was so simple and staring us in the face the whole time.

Lock this puppy up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is the way I see it, Kirssie-poo. These things are not some bizzare, quasi-real Fee-nom-o-nom. The land raider is a single thing with a definable space...the board in which the game takes place is a single thing with a definable space.

You cannot be ON THE BOARD* and deployed if you are not ON THE BOARD**. If you are not ON THE BOARD*** when you move ON THE BOARD**** from reserve, you have made an illegal move.

* Emphasis mine.
** Also mine.
*** Yep, me again.
**** I don't know who did this one, waddn't me, ya'll.

ajfirecracker wrote:Multi-table game use all sorts of special rules, as do almost all the special missions and campaigns suggested. They're really not a good source to cite for normal games' rules.

I agree with you in general (even though I struggle to find a concrete example of rules changes for multi-table games - table size is not guaranteed), but the question that the examples were used for still stands.
Where does it say table edges break LOS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RxGhost wrote:silliness

Yes, but it does not say "wholly", "entirely", or anysuch. If I move 1" onto the board, I moved onto the board.

RxGhost wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:The RaW is simple: The vehicle starts off of the board. You move the front of the hull from just off of the board 6" for Combat speed. If you moved more than 6" it is cruising speed. 6-12" is cruising speed plain and simple. From the very front to the edge of the board has been specified to be 7" by the OP. Only a single weapon and all defensive weapons should have been able to be fired.

I know, right? It was so simple and staring us in the face the whole time.

Lock this puppy up!

How do you resolve Baneblades or Monoliths then, which cannot move more than 6"? Easy, you leave them "hanging" on the table edge as permitted by the rules.