First 5th ed. game (SM vs Orks)

[WarpSpawn]

Which is easier? Play by GW's "suggestions" or make your own up as you go along? I would much rather let someone else compile a list of FAQs we can all agree to use, even if those FAQs are not considered to be "official". If anything is a glaringly obvious mistake, I will discuss this with my opponent before the game but I don't really see the concept of "you cannot leave the board" (unless explicitly given permission to) to be a glaringly obvious mistake.

 

Come on people! It is a bit of a cop out that they will not stand by their own rulings but it is not an excuse to toss the whole lot out if you have ben previously been abiding by them for years. Last time I checked, the rulebooks themselves are just a suggested way to play, with a bit saying if you don't like it, play it however the hell you like, just so long as you are having fun.

 

Oh, and on the subject of the rules being permissive, I cannot think of anybody who is given permission to actually move over the edge of the table. Even falling back troops simply touch it, then are scooped up by the big hand in the sky.

[angronn]

For me, the precedent set by scattering ordance, blasts and deep strike for involuntarily moving things off the table and being lost (although not quite so terminal for deep strikers in 5th) incline me towards the "kareen off table = gone" side of things. Is there any other involuntary movement that halts at the table edge? Your fall-back movement isn't a great example, given that they all disappear when they touch the table edge - it's just semantics that they are removed when they touch the table edge rather than specifically walking off the board. We all know that they've passed the boundary of the battle and they ain't coming back.

[WarpSpawn]

Scattering off the table for shooting or deepstriking is not moving off the table. Deepstriking off the table also does not result in an instant kill, but the rules for this do include an explicit statement to explain what happens.

 

I don't see as the falling back example is just semantics. The never cross the generally assumed to be impenetrable barrier that is the edge of the table. Furthermore, what does happen to them also includes and explicit statement to explain how this works.

 

There is no RAW precedent for moving something off the table, either voluntarilly or involuntarilly, unless there is some explicit statement to cover that situation so, fun as it may be, we are really just playing a game of "my made up idea is better than your made up idea". Whilst I realise my idea is not definitive either, I do still think my idea is better than your idea so ;) . :(

 

I'm also going to toss the idea out there that we should probably still stick to the GW FAQs unless the majority opinion in our respective gaming groups says otherwise (either in general or for specific examples). "Official" or not, it does at least mean we are all singing from the same hymm sheet.

[imagine28]

Personally, I think the only time a unit should be destroyed for leaving a table is falling back... this represents them "fleeing" from the battle... a Trukk scattering off the table is not running or fleeing from the battle. I think they would be more then happy to jump off the Trukk and charge right back into the battle.

 

Also, a unit Deep Striking off the table would be them missing the battle field, but a Trukk isn't going to kareen so far off the table that the boyz can't make their way back...

 

Just my opinion, take it for what its worth ^_^ (prolly less then nothing)

[maniclurker]

Personally, I think the only time a unit should be destroyed for leaving a table is falling back... this represents them "fleeing" from the battle... a Trukk scattering off the table is not running or fleeing from the battle. I think they would be more then happy to jump off the Trukk and charge right back into the battle.

 

Also, a unit Deep Striking off the table would be them missing the battle field, but a Trukk isn't going to kareen so far off the table that the boyz can't make their way back...

 

Just my opinion, take it for what its worth :D (prolly less then nothing)

 

 

Um, why can't the termies that just missed the battle field by 2" run their way back on? Because they are off the battlefield. Same goes for the truck. That's how it should be. Are ork players going to abide that? No. Especially when the faq says they don't have to. And this is why I hate trucks...

[Trekari]

Let's not forget that every time you use the scatter dice, you can scatter off the table.

 

Except when you're using the scatter dice for Trukks? Rules don't say they are an exception to that precedent.

[WarpSpawn]

Name me one case where a unit can move off the table, using scatter dice or otherwise, without an explicit statement to cover that situation.

[angronn]

Does scatter = move? If we can play semantics with falling back, I think we ought to be consistent.

[WarpSpawn]

Why, do you have an example of a unit in play (or otherwise for that matter) that scatters off the table, without explicit rules to cover what happens when they do?

 

As I already said, it is not semantics witht the falling back. Depending on the size of the unit and the distance moved, many models in the unit may not even come close to the edge of the board. How are they moving over the edge exactly? Even so, it still tells you exactly what to do when they get to the edge, whether they move over it or not, so this is pretty much irrelevant to the point I am trying to make now.

 

I want an example of a unit in play, that can move over the edge of the table, without explicit rules to cover the situation. A situation where it naturally occurs that a model can cross that barrier and be destroyed. Can you provide one or not? I'm betting not.

 

Edit: Cos I'm a reasonable kind of guy, I'll also accept a page reference in the BRB where it says a unit moving off the board is destroyed (in general, not just in a specific situation or at the very least for compulsory movement in general).

[Praeger]

Warp - your asking for specific proof that does not exist, but at the same time can not back your argument up with any specific proof, since it too does not exist.

 

The FAQ does not count, GW says so.

 

We have listed numerous times what happens when anything moves off the table, and although those occasions specificly tell you what to do they all still say the same general thing.

 

The Truck is the ONE unit/object that can ove off the table that does not say anything in this regard.

 

When comparing the evidence there is more that says "off the board = destroyed" then there is saying "off the board = dont move off the board"

 

Again, for your argument to work you need to show some other examples of where this can and does happen, without using the FAQ.

 

Also - this topic is on VERY thin ice so if anyone starts trolling, personal comments etc, whoever takes part in it will be seeing my melta start turning towards them - be warned.

[WarpSpawn]

Actully, I have to prove very little here. All I have to prove is that there is no general rule that says "move off board = destroyed", which is not difficult and I challenge anyone to disprove this with a suitable page reference and/or quote. I've already put forward my idea of how it should be played, with an admission that this is my own creative reading (backed up by GW's own house rules, which does still count for something if not as much as perhaps it once did). Since then, all I have been trying to say is that we are all just employing creative reading. None of use are citing RAW (at least not that applies directy to trukks careening towards the board edge) and this thread presumably no longer has any real need for further discussion in the official rules forum, as there does not seem to be any official rule covering it, just a lot of opinion.

 

All we have is a number of specific examples where the rules explicitly state how a unit behaves in that situation. In one of the examples cited (namely deepstriking), the nit is not even instakilled, it suffers a mishap that may result in destruction, but this is by no means guaranteed. Perhaps there should be a mishap table for the trukk's passengers then? For what it's worth, I'd also like to point out that the deepstrike rules treat off the board in the same way as impassable terrain, in that both trigger a mishap.

 

Call it semantics if you like butunits faling back also makes no mention of crossing the table edge, though it does tell you what to do in this specific situation. Besides, you can cite all the examples you like but, without an explicit statement in this case, there is nothing in RAW to back you up, any more than there is to back me up. These comparisons are all very interesting, and may even give some guidance on how to play a comparable situation (though few mentioned are comparable to this) but they prove nothing in terms of RAW. I don't have specific proof and neither do you.

 

I also think a good portion of this thread has turned into rebelling for the sake of rebelling against GW's refusal to tell us how to think. By their own admission, the whole BRB is just a bunch of guidelines and suggestions yet few are suggesting we just toss that out as well.

 

I hope this is not treading too heavily on your thin ice as that is not my intention at all.

[SeattleDV8]

Ah ok I see where you are coming from Warp. It also makes the FAQ clearer, at least the logic behind it. In a premissive rules set we have nothing to allow the truck to leave the table ,unlike DS , weapon scatter or falling back.

By strict RAW you cannot leave.

Even though I believe that it would be more Orkie to allow it to do so.

[Praeger]

I hope this is not treading too heavily on your thin ice as that is not my intention at all.

 

Dont worry Warp, you arnt :P

 

I just dont want anyone to start comments against you in the wrong way.