Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The only rules that destroy an entire unit outright are generally due to the opponent's activity:
Sweeping Advance (you have been beaten in assault and lost the initiative roll-off)
Trapped! (you have been beaten in assault and the opponent blocks your retreat)
Assaults While Falling Back (You have been beaten in assault and fail to regroup when assaulted by an enemy unit)
Transport Vehicles: Destroyed – wrecked (the enemy has surrounded and wrecked your transport)

Deep Strike mishaps only offer a 1 in 3 chance to destroy a unit and may indeed be due to the strategic position of your enemy blocking your entry.

RAI: unless the enemy is entirely blocking your entry from reserves, you may move the model on ignoring difficult terrain, rage, crazed!, Glory Hogs, etc.

utan wrote:ignoring difficult terrain

The rules still do not support this approach. You may ignore special rules that may proclude the vehicle from moving onto the board, but difficult terrain is not a special rule.

And the fact that most actions that destroy your units are a product of your opponent's actions really has no bearing on the situation.

SaintHazard wrote:

utan wrote:ignoring difficult terrain

The rules still do not support this approach. You may ignore special rules that may proclude the vehicle from moving onto the board, but difficult terrain is not a special rule.

And the fact that most actions that destroy your units are a product of your opponent's actions really has no bearing on the situation.

I am discussing from the RAI side as I indicated, so the rules precedents to apply.

The RAW is unclear as we see from the partially/fully/on/off thread...

To be a bit more precise, you can only ignore the UNIT's special rules. Taking a difficult terrain test is NOT a unit's special rule.

SaintHazard wrote:I like how in CptZach's version of the rules, you can add qualifiers where none previously existed.

Tell you what, from now on, when YOU'RE shooting, you need to be able to draw LOS and range on my ENTIRE unit of infantry, because I felt like adding a qualifier there. And from now on, your templates and blast markers have to ENTIRELY cover the base of an infantry model for it to count as a hit. And while we're at it, you can't assault unless your base is ENTIRELY in contact with my base - so basically, if you can't stack your bases on top of mine, you can't assault me, ever. And your 24" range on your storm bolter needs to ENTIRELY cover whatever you're shooting at, so if the model you're shooting at isn't 24" long and right up against your base, you can't shoot them.

...wanna stop adding arbitrary qualifiers now? 'Cause I can sit here and do this all day.

Except you're adding a qualifier that isn't there. All of those things are already refuted by the rules. A template just has to touch a model, you only need LOS to 1 model in a unit to shoot at it ect.

The word I added didn't change the meaning at all.

Move the model onto the table and move the entire model onto the table. Both are exactly the same. There is no difference from the model and the entire model.

Versus you who are changing it and saying move PART of the model onto the table.

CptZach wrote:Except you're adding a qualifier that isn't there. All of those things are already refuted by the rules. A template just has to touch a model, you only need LOS to 1 model in a unit to shoot at it ect.

The word I added didn't change the meaning at all.

Move the model onto the table and move the entire model onto the table. Both are exactly the same. There is no difference from the model and the entire model.

Versus you who are changing it and saying move PART of the model onto the table.

Wanna go ahead and quote me the rule that says the ENTIRE model has to be on the table?

I'll give you a hint: it doesn't exist.

You're adding the "entire" qualifier. The model must be on the table. End of. If .0000000000001% of the model is on the table, the model is on the table. "Part of the model" is adding a qualifier just as much as "the whole model." The fact is, both satisfy the unqualified requirement of "on the table."

CptZach wrote:Move the model onto the table and move the entire model onto the table. Both are exactly the same. There is no difference from the model and the entire model..

Errm... Yes, there is?

As we had to do in the other thread, please answer the following question with ONE SINGLE WORD: Yes OR No.

One Word. Not hard right?

Is the ruler on the Table? Yes, or No. Please, once again (since this part is hard for people apparently), ONE WORD ANSWER, Yes, or No.

It's like disembarking from a transport. You only need a smidgen (yes that's a technical term) of the base withing 2" of the door (or whatever) as it says within. Not ENTIRELY within.

Oshova

Oshova wrote:It's like disembarking from a transport. You only need a smidgen (yes that's a technical term) of the base withing 2" of the door (or whatever) as it says within. Not ENTIRELY within.

Oshova

You're on fire today, dude.

Hang out here more often.

It won't last I'm sure. Just having a good half hour or so =p

Ouze wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:I'm not aware of anywhere where it says I'm not allowed to target anything off the board - in fact, on or off the board isn't detailed at all, so I see no rules conflict (unless you try to charge it, in which case you can't wrap around the tank very much).

Well, this sounds like a refreshing new way to play! I look forward to, in my next game, having a whirlwind battery off the board in reserve shooting onto the board. After all, there is nothing on page 94 (reserves) which says I can't do that. Of course, I have to be careful, because he can also destroy my units in reserve! As a matter of fact, if he put them close enough to my side, my opponent's units in reserve (off the board) will assault my off-board reserve units! And if he does that, I can't stop him, because nothing in the rulebook says he can't do that.

In the first paragraph, you presume a restrictive ruleset - unless it specifically says you can, you can't. In the second paragraph, you presume a permissive ruleset - you can do anything not explicitly forbidden by the rules. Which is it?

Man I remember doing that in 2nd Ed with my Lemans. It was so awesome. "INCOMING!"

I think I might have to start IG and go out and buy 9 Basilisk models . . . =D

Oshova

... You cannot shoot from or at models in reserve or assault them. This is because they have not been placed so they effectively exist nowhere. When a model is stranded off the board that is different as it has been place at a fixed location.

@Gwar
No


Oh and I know everyone likes to quote the permissive ruleset.
So please show me the rule that allows a model to be halfway off the board.

CptZach wrote:@Gwar
No

So why isn't it on the floor?

If it was not on the table, it would fall onto the floor, right?

Gwar! wrote:

CptZach wrote:@Gwar
No

So why isn't it on the floor?

If it was not on the table, it would fall onto the floor, right?

So wait, you ask me to give a 1 word answer and then you make fun of me when I do?

Wow dude.

CptZach wrote:
So wait, you ask me to give a 1 word answer and then you make fun of me when I do?

When it is blatantly wrong, and apparently deliberately so, it is not so strange, really.

The ruler is on the table by any definition you care to look up.
It is not entirely on the table, but no one asked if it was, and no rule states it has to be.

The ruler (per correct english) refers to the entire ruler.
In order to talk about part of the ruler you would need to add a qualifier.

The (entire) ruler is not on the table. So the answer is no.

CptZach wrote:The ruler (per incorrect english) refers to the entire ruler.

You have not looked it up, have you?

If you have, then my assumption that you are being deliberately wrong is well founded.

English actually would require the word you are adding to be added for the statement you are making up to be true.

Really.

Editing to save people the. . .effort:
Here is what on means in English.

No, not really.

Alright, this is getting off topic. Please refrain from arguing semantics in this thread.

Seriously? I mean, you're actually going to try to tell us that the phrase "partially on" does not have the word "on" in it?

Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

The ruler is fully on the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

Is the ruler on the desk? No? The ruler is on the floor. If the ruler is not on the floor, or magically suspended mid-air, it cannot be anywhere but on the desk.

The ruler cannot be off the desk and on the desk at the same time. If it is partially on the desk, it is not off the desk. It is on the desk.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

SaintHazard wrote:... snip ...

I understand your frustration, but I repeat, this is not the thread for argument, only for data collection.

Thank you.

-Points to Flag-

-Points to country where Book was written-

In ENGLISH, that ruler is on the table.

We invented the damn thing, you listen to us! </joke>

Hey, we have the Englishes too!

In Americas we talk plenty good today.

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

Lol so many things wrong with this. You added a qualifier. Partially on and On are not the same thing.

I am glad you need to revert to personal attacks to try and prove yourself correct.

CptZach wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

Lol so many things wrong with this. You added a qualifier. Partially on and On are not the same thing.

I am glad you need to revert to personal attacks to try and prove yourself correct.

Never did I say they were the same thing. Don't quote me out of context and put words in my mouth.

Partially on is not the same thing as on, because "partially on" has nine more letters and a qualifier.

But is "partially on" "on"? Yes. "Partially on" includes "on." If it's partially on, it qualifies for the unqualified requirement of "on."

And this really is the kind of gak they teach you in first grade. It's absolutely staggering that there are people who don't realize this.

SaintHazard wrote:

CptZach wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Are you blind or stupid?

The ruler is partially in the desk. Is it on the desk? Yes.

I mean, this is the kind of thing they teach you in first grade.

Lol so many things wrong with this. You added a qualifier. Partially on and On are not the same thing.

I am glad you need to revert to personal attacks to try and prove yourself correct.

Never did I say they were the same thing. Don't quote me out of context and put words in my mouth.

Partially on is not the same thing as on, because "partially on" has nine more letters and a qualifier.

But is "partially on" "on"? Yes. "Partially on" includes "on." If it's partially on, it qualifies for the unqualified requirement of "on."

And this really is the kind of gak they teach you in first grade. It's absolutely staggering that there are people who don't realize this.

Cut it out (edit: both of you!). Do you even bother reading the original posts, or my numerous posts telling you to leave the argument alone?

You both think you're correct. That's fine, but keep it to yourselves. Send each other a PM if you want to argue, or start your own thread.

Modquisition on.

Multiple warnings have been given. Further posts after this public warning that violate Rule #1 will now draw suspensions automatically with no further warnings. Weiners are now watching. Be afraid.

Guys, guys, I think I got it. Lets try this: So, Zach. What you're saying is that in order for a model to be on the table, it's footprint must be entirely on the table. I understand what you're saying, though I don't agree with it. But what about the table itself? I don't play on the floor, and I don't play on a column. My table is on legs though, because it would be any of those things otherwise, and therefore, make for a pretty terrible table. Right? _ON_ legs. The footprint of the table is not containable within the space on top of the legs, but it is still said to be ON. Now, since GW didn't (and with good reason) include any explanation of what it means to be "on", we must fall back to the English definition. Therefore, I call Merriam-Webster to the stand:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on?show=0&t=1285261701

1a —used as a function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top surface of <the book is lying on the table>

Except we can actually reduce that one step further, by the magic of Wobbly Model Syndrome, because that gives us a tool for things that will not stand on the table, i.e. Baneblade immobilized 1" into its movement, so then English (per the language) appears to argue in favor of option B.

A good proof of concept of this is here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/table

3a: a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs