Perhaps thats what we should all do: simply ignore DR, as he is yet to make a cogent argument thatr does not involve adding words such as "entire" or "fully" into the rules.

Don't spam this thread. It's long enough as is without having to scroll past posts that offer nothing in regards to this discussion.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

maybe you don't get that its partially on.

and if you know what area means then you will understand that i am correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Perhaps thats what we should all do: simply ignore DR, as he is yet to make a cogent argument thatr does not involve adding words such as "entire" or "fully" into the rules.

do me a favor, please define what area means to you.

DeathReaper wrote:please define what area means to you.

Forum rules frown upon this for the same reason you should not ask this. And against my better judgement in responding to you in this thread.

Area.

a part of an object or surface

or

the extent or measurement of a surface or piece of land

Now, please find it in the rule book for the game we are discussing why one definition that you ignore should be ignored, and the one you think is the only one that matters is relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why stop there?

Please find where "on" requires 100%?

21 pages in.

This thread generated WAY too many Mod Alerts on a daily basis.

If all parties CANNOT act according to the rules of this site, not only will this thread be locked, but suspensions will be handed out as well.

Final Warning.

Alpharius wrote:21 pages in.

This thread generated WAY too many Mod Alerts on a daily basis.

If all parties CANNOT act according to the rules of this site, not only will this thread be locked, but suspensions will be handed out as well.

Final Warning.

Just wondering but who's alerting what? Or is it just one or both side alerting because they don't like the post?

Back on topic...

Rules are clear that a model will not explode or disappear if it is stuck off or partially off the board. It is still there, so for all purposes we can still use it. We can even use WMS so that the model is safely placed. This is clearly not every ones cup of tea and i expect it to be house rules one way or another in most games where it comes up.

I completely agree with Gwar!'s assessment and reasoning.


If you have a book and it is resting on two tables that are side by side, it is on both tables. It is on one table, and it is one the other.

Others have tried to explain this already, particularly kirsanth, who gave a very nice explanation about it on the previous page. However, I'm going to try to break it down even simpler. In particular, I'm going to focus on demonstrating why the example of a tank trying to move partially off the board is not equivalent to a model moving partially on. This will (I hope) explain the basic position here and why the rules work this way.

In the case of the ruler, it is (partially) on the table, and (partially) off the table.
Hence:
The ruler is on the table: TRUE
The ruler is off the table: TRUE
The ruler is not on the table: FALSE (it can't not be on, because it is on)
The ruler is not off the table: FALSE (it can't not be off, because it is off)

In the case of a model entering from reserve:
The model must "move onto" the table - this means it must move in such a way as to go from not being on the table, to being on the table. The rules make no reference to being OFF the table at all.
The model starts it's move in a position where it is not on the table, and ends it's move in a position where it is on the table. The fact that it may still be off the table is irrelevant. It moved from not-on to on, hence it has "moved onto" the table, exactly as required.
Therefore, this is fine.

In the case of the tank skirting around a building near the edge of the board:
The model is prohibited from "moving off" the table - this means it must NOT move in such a way as to go from not being off the table, to being off the table. The rules make no reference to being ON the table at all.
The model starts it's move in a position where it is not off the table, and ends it's move in a position where it is off the table. The fact that it may still be on the table is irrelevant. It moved from not-off to off, hence it has "moved off" the table, exactly as it is prohibited from doing.
Therefore, it can't do this.

CodGod wrote:
In the case of the tank skirting around a building near the edge of the board:
The model is prohibited from "moving off" the table - this means it must NOT move in such a way as to go from not being off the table, to being off the table. The rules make no reference to being ON the table at all.
The model starts it's move in a position where it is not off the table, and ends it's move in a position where it is off the table. The fact that it may still be on the table is irrelevant. It moved from not-off to off, hence it has "moved off" the table, exactly as it is prohibited from doing.
Therefore, it can't do this.

The problem with the skirting isn't the rules themselves on being able to skirt; but the rational as to why a reserve immobilized off the table would not be destroyed as per reasoning that "it is partially on and as such it IS on".


Now on Pg. 92 it states that the model must move "on". The FAQ states that a model must never move "off". Neither state anything about partially or fully; the idea that "partially on is still on" DOES in fact create a loop hole that a model that is moving from one place to another on the table even if it is partially off is still ON, and thus is not moving "off."

Because the model is still ON the table and not OFF as it were by the rational that has been repeated and repeated.


So my question to you is this; at what point do you consider a model is "off" the board. If it is "off" when it is "fully off" as I would agree, then I could not skirt a building at all because I can not move off the table at all. However, if I can be partially on because it is still on, then I could skirt the building because the model would still be on the board. But if on is 100% then I would loose my vehicle if it is immobilized even partially off on reserve as it starts its move at the boards edge and moves "as normal" from that line as per Pg. 92.

I want to make sure that one rule is not having the cause and effect that it creates a loophole which "breaks another rule" as this partially off is still on ruling WOULD create; unless it is written into rule that on is 100% on and off is 100% off.

Dracheous wrote:

CodGod wrote:
In the case of the tank skirting around a building near the edge of the board:
The model is prohibited from "moving off" the table - this means it must NOT move in such a way as to go from not being off the table, to being off the table. The rules make no reference to being ON the table at all.
The model starts it's move in a position where it is not off the table, and ends it's move in a position where it is off the table. The fact that it may still be on the table is irrelevant. It moved from not-off to off, hence it has "moved off" the table, exactly as it is prohibited from doing.
Therefore, it can't do this.

The problem with the skirting isn't the rules themselves on being able to skirt; but the rational as to why a reserve immobilized off the table would not be destroyed as per reasoning that "it is partially on and as such it IS on".

Wait Oh god not again. Its been said enough times there is no rule it is destroy... No Rule... Nothing...Nada...Zip... So please stop bring that up

Now on Pg. 92 it states that the model must move "on". The FAQ states that a model must never move "off". Neither state anything about partially or fully; the idea that "partially on is still on" DOES in fact create a loop hole that a model that is moving from one place to another on the table even if it is partially off is still ON, and thus is not moving "off."

Because the model is still ON the table and not OFF as it were by the rational that has been repeated and repeated.


So my question to you is this; at what point do you consider a model is "off" the board. If it is "off" when it is "fully off" as I would agree, then I could not skirt a building at all because I can not move off the table at all. However, if I can be partially on because it is still on, then I could skirt the building because the model would still be on the board. But if on is 100% then I would loose my vehicle if it is immobilized even partially off on reserve as it starts its move at the boards edge and moves "as normal" from that line as per Pg. 92.

I want to make sure that one rule is not having the cause and effect that it creates a loophole which "breaks another rule" as this partially off is still on ruling WOULD create; unless it is written into rule that on is 100% on and off is 100% off.

Reread codgods post its very nice and explains this very simply. I will try even simpler.

You are on the board you move partially off the board. Are you moving off the board? Yes because you are less on the board then when you started you are moving off the board. As that is illegal, move the model back on.

Why not just agree to disagree and be done with this discussion? It's not like either side is going to change their position. That would be a civilized approach and save face for everyone.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Why not just agree to disagree and be done with this discussion? It's not like either side is going to change their position. That would be a civilized approach and save face for everyone.

But... But....

Gwar! wrote:

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Why not just agree to disagree and be done with this discussion? It's not like either side is going to change their position. That would be a civilized approach and save face for everyone.

But... But....

I've literally done this at least 3 times this week. Go xkcd!

Why hasn't this thread been locked with a;

"It seems we are going around in circles."

or a;

"Yeah, it seems we are about done here."

or just a picture of a kitten or a surprised-looking cute asian girl?

Steelmage99 wrote:Why hasn't this thread been locked with a;

"It seems we are going around in circles."

or a;

"Yeah, it seems we are about done here."

or just a picture of a kitten or a surprised-looking cute asian girl?

Well so far we may be moving in circles but each time round we cover something new. They might also be experimenting to see how long this can go on till it implodes. At any rate everything has been reasonably civil: I see no reason just to shut down a thread just because its been going on a long time

Dracheous wrote:

CodGod wrote:
In the case of the tank skirting around a building near the edge of the board:
The model is prohibited from "moving off" the table - this means it must NOT move in such a way as to go from not being off the table, to being off the table. The rules make no reference to being ON the table at all.
The model starts it's move in a position where it is not off the table, and ends it's move in a position where it is off the table. The fact that it may still be on the table is irrelevant. It moved from not-off to off, hence it has "moved off" the table, exactly as it is prohibited from doing.
Therefore, it can't do this.

The problem with the skirting isn't the rules themselves on being able to skirt; but the rational as to why a reserve immobilized off the table would not be destroyed as per reasoning that "it is partially on and as such it IS on".


Now on Pg. 92 it states that the model must move "on". The FAQ states that a model must never move "off". Neither state anything about partially or fully; the idea that "partially on is still on" DOES in fact create a loop hole that a model that is moving from one place to another on the table even if it is partially off is still ON, and thus is not moving "off."

Because the model is still ON the table and not OFF as it were by the rational that has been repeated and repeated.


So my question to you is this; at what point do you consider a model is "off" the board. If it is "off" when it is "fully off" as I would agree, then I could not skirt a building at all because I can not move off the table at all. However, if I can be partially on because it is still on, then I could skirt the building because the model would still be on the board. But if on is 100% then I would loose my vehicle if it is immobilized even partially off on reserve as it starts its move at the boards edge and moves "as normal" from that line as per Pg. 92.

I want to make sure that one rule is not having the cause and effect that it creates a loophole which "breaks another rule" as this partially off is still on ruling WOULD create; unless it is written into rule that on is 100% on and off is 100% off.

You seem to have misunderstood my post.

If the model is partially on the board, it is on the board.
If the model is partially off the board, it is off the board.
The model can therefore be both ON and OFF the table simultaneously, just like the ruler.
And oddly enough, the rules are written in a way that they handle this fine! How about that?

The model entering from reserve has to move onto the board - it goes from "not on" to "on" (even if only partially). The model is still off the board as well as on, but the rules only require that it be on, not that it be "not off"
The model skirting around an obstacle cannot move off the board - it cannot go from "not off" to "off" (even if only partially). The model would still on the board as well as off, but the rules specifically require that it not go off, not just that it stays on.

You're right that the tank would still be (partially) ON the table while moving around the obstacle, but it would ALSO be (partially) OFF the table. And the rules say "You can't move OFF", not "you must stay ON". So the fact it's still on the table is irrelevant to the fact it would also move off, which it can't do.

Whereas in the case of the model entering from reserve, the rules only say that it must move on, so it can end it's move off the table provided it's also on the table. The rules say "you must move on" not, "you can't be off"

Does that explain my position any better? I'm happy to try to elaborate further.

CodGod - no, that is not entirely correct.

If you are partially ON the board it is *impossible* for you to be OFF the board. You can be partially off, however partially off is NOT == off. This is one of those cases where partially on == on, but the converse is not true. Oddities of language, but it isnt commutative!

Here the requirement is to not be "moving off" - the emphasis is on the act of moving - if you are moving off, i.e. you are less "on" than before you moved, you are moving illegally.

CodGod wrote:

Does that explain my position any better? I'm happy to try to elaborate further.

Oh I get your argument; but the key to the point I am seeing here that no one seems to be grasping or I am not underlining enough is that neither the FAQ nor the Reserves rules concerning the board edge have the word "partially".


So what I am seeing, even in your example repeatedly employed is this notion that when coming from reserves even though the rules only state must go "on" the table; this threads adding the words "even partially" to those rule sets.

But to the FAQ which uses the SAME sentence structure stating that the model can not go "off" the thread seems to be adding "not even partially" to their argument against my point that there has yet been no definition of what exactly counts as "off".

Through out the the thread Gwar especially has argued that partially off is still on. If that is to be the definition of off; then the model does not actually go off the table.


So it comes down to interpretation of the rules and in that while two sentences are written in the same manor with black and white "on" vs "off", in one situation it is to be read differently than the other even though the structure is the same.

It would be as if I said: "This apple is red." the apple would be red only. But then wrote "This apple is green." but then later someone says that I meant that it was "partially yellow".



But I understand as well that often the rules are broken only because of the two largest problems plaguing them; 1. Typo's 2. Interpretation. So the intent is for discussion; but it seems that it has broken down from many on both sides here. Some have even gone so far to say that users opinions do not matter to the forum if they don't answer one individuals question; and THAT's a recipe for disaster in any "civil" discussion. I think the thread has dwindled past its usefulness at this point; its already been "cleaned" twice from the looks of it by the mods for people falling back to mud slinging rather than debate. Which really illustrates that its a matter which should be addressed by the next FAQ by GW; and to which I hope a better definition of "On vs Off" would be given; if it was intended to be fully as it always was from what I remember, or if it is partially, or only partially in certain cases. But "partially" is not written anywhere, and thus we've got the group wanting to add it and of course the group that does not want to add words unwritten to the BRB.

Dracheous:

Yes, the word "partially" isnt there. Hoewever it is an unqualified statement: partially and fully are both able to satisfy the requirement, so both are allowed.

When you try to move off the table, you cannot "move off" - and moving off is "true" if you start entirely on and move even 1" partially off the table, as you have Move(d) off.

On and Off are not the same; while they can be binary in terms of "on the table" being "on the table" can be true while you are still partially "off" the table, but you can never be "off" the table if you are partially on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dracheous:

Yes, the word "partially" isnt there. Hoewever it is an unqualified statement: partially and fully are both able to satisfy the requirement, so both are allowed.

Can I ask why you get to determine this?

When you try to move off the table, you cannot "move off" - and moving off is "true" if you start entirely on and move even 1" partially off the table, as you have Move(d) off.

Ah, but you are still on and partially on is "on", and partially on is not "off" So which is it? You move, you cannot move off, but partially being on proves you are not off, because you are "on".(At this point I know I am poking a lot of sleeping bears, but it is just to much fun not to!) You have countered your own arguement here and I am confused as to where this has come from. I think that it is my misunderstanding your postion at this point. Anyways, great to be back, hope to continue on to an agreed upon anwser.

On and Off are not the same; while they can be binary in terms of "on the table" being "on the table" can be true while you are still partially "off" the table, but you can never be "off" the table if you are partially on.

So you are saying that is I move less then 1 inch on the table (to satisfy being on the table *your thoughts*) then I can continue to move and have the same amount of the model off the table?

The compostion fallacy..... You are saying that since a part of the model is on the table the model is on the table. When you make a blanket statment about "model" you are saying in essence the entire model is on. So to say that a part of something makes the entire something the same way you have commited this fallacy.

And Dracheous, I have stated many times that the way they read it is how they think it is. How, myself and others, read it is how we think it is. When in fact the only way it can be is how GW says it is. This is all sepculation, seeings how no one as far as I know works for GW.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dracheous:

Yes, the word "partially" isnt there. Hoewever it is an unqualified statement: partially and fully are both able to satisfy the requirement, so both are allowed.

Can I ask why you get to determine this?

When you try to move off the table, you cannot "move off" - and moving off is "true" if you start entirely on and move even 1" partially off the table, as you have Move(d) off.

Ah, but you are still on and partially on is "on", and partially on is not "off" So which is it? You move, you cannot move off, but partially being on proves you are not off, because you are "on".(At this point I know I am poking a lot of sleeping bears, but it is just to much fun not to!) You have countered your own arguement here and I am confused as to where this has come from. I think that it is my misunderstanding your postion at this point. Anyways, great to be back, hope to continue on to an agreed upon anwser.

On and Off are not the same; while they can be binary in terms of "on the table" being "on the table" can be true while you are still partially "off" the table, but you can never be "off" the table if you are partially on.

So you are saying that is I move less then 1 inch on the table (to satisfy being on the table *your thoughts*) then I can continue to move and have the same amount of the model off the table?

The compostion fallacy..... You are saying that since a part of the model is on the table the model is on the table. When you make a blanket statment about "model" you are saying in essence the entire model is on. So to say that a part of something makes the entire something the same way you have commited this fallacy.

And Dracheous, I have stated many times that the way they read it is how they think it is. How, myself and others, read it is how we think it is. When in fact the only way it can be is how GW says it is. This is all sepculation, seeings how no one as far as I know works for GW.

Sorry but there is no such fallacy being committed. You see, the definition of the word "on" is unqualified and by it's definition allows it to be partially on and still on. Again, I don't know how many times we have to say it, but being partially supported is still being supported and therefore allows the model as a whole to be qualified as "on".

"Off" means not being supported AT ALL. You can not be both off and on. "Moving off" is different than being unsupported. It means that you are currently heading in the direction of being no longer supported. Like it has been said, "moving off" is being less on the table than when you started.

Rephistorch wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dracheous:

Yes, the word "partially" isnt there. Hoewever it is an unqualified statement: partially and fully are both able to satisfy the requirement, so both are allowed.

Can I ask why you get to determine this?

When you try to move off the table, you cannot "move off" - and moving off is "true" if you start entirely on and move even 1" partially off the table, as you have Move(d) off.

Ah, but you are still on and partially on is "on", and partially on is not "off" So which is it? You move, you cannot move off, but partially being on proves you are not off, because you are "on".(At this point I know I am poking a lot of sleeping bears, but it is just to much fun not to!) You have countered your own arguement here and I am confused as to where this has come from. I think that it is my misunderstanding your postion at this point. Anyways, great to be back, hope to continue on to an agreed upon anwser.

On and Off are not the same; while they can be binary in terms of "on the table" being "on the table" can be true while you are still partially "off" the table, but you can never be "off" the table if you are partially on.

So you are saying that is I move less then 1 inch on the table (to satisfy being on the table *your thoughts*) then I can continue to move and have the same amount of the model off the table?

The compostion fallacy..... You are saying that since a part of the model is on the table the model is on the table. When you make a blanket statment about "model" you are saying in essence the entire model is on. So to say that a part of something makes the entire something the same way you have commited this fallacy.

And Dracheous, I have stated many times that the way they read it is how they think it is. How, myself and others, read it is how we think it is. When in fact the only way it can be is how GW says it is. This is all speculation, seeings how no one as far as I know works for GW.

Sorry but there is no such fallacy being committed. You see, the definition of the word "on" is unqualified and by it's definition allows it to be partially on and still on. Again, I don't know how many times we have to say it, but being partially supported is still being supported and therefore allows the model as a whole to be qualified as "on".

"Off" means not being supported AT ALL. You can not be both off and on. "Moving off" is different than being unsupported. It means that you are currently heading in the direction of being no longer supported. Like it has been said, "moving off" is being less on the table than when you started.

I guess you don't get it! You are saying that in order to be "off" you need to be completely off. Is this correct? Moving off, is now by your thoughts and interpretations that the model is less on then before. Regardless of whether or not the model is now more off then it was before, is it still on the table? (also I am not moving off the table I am moving to get around this building, my intention is to keep the model on the board so I am not moving off) Why do you get to arbitrarly get to determine these things? Addtionaly, yes you have made the composition fallacy. I have given you the exact defention, and exact example of what you are doing to make your postion a fallacy.

Here we go again, you judge the whole based on a part..... .000001 of the model is on the table, the entire model is on the table. That is what it sounds like when you say partially on is on. Compostion fallacy period. You saying it's not, does not make it so.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Here we go again, you judge the whole based on a part..... .000001 of the model is on the table, the entire model is on the table. That is what it sounds like when you say partially on is on. Compostion fallacy period. You saying it's not, does not make it so.

...so you misquoting what we're saying so that it is a compositional fallacy makes it a compositional fallacy? I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy for that...

Noone is saying that if it is partially on then it is entirely on. It's not entirely on.
But it is on.

KP - I am not "deciding" that partially and fully on satisfy "on", the English Language does.

YOU are the one who is, without ANY RULES SUPPORT WHATSOEVER deciding that "on" means "fully on" only.

IT is not the composition fallacy: you have been told twice now how you are wrong in this matter, and misqupting and changing arguments is not a way to "prove" otherwise.

"Moving off" is the key phrase: if you are in the act of moving off, i.e. being less on than before, you are moving contrary to the rules. This does not contradict the argument as, and AGAIN you have been told this many, many times, moving off /= off.
RAW: the model being partially on fully, 100000% fulfills the requirement to move onto.

The English Language tells you this (if not, please explain how)
Maths tells you this
Logic tells you this

You have: nothing.

Nos has been saying this the whole damn thread, but apparently nobody is listening.

The BRB gives us an unqualified statement. "On."

It says neither "fully on" nor "partially on," merely "on."

Both "fully on" and "partially on" satisfy the requirement to be "on" the board. They're "on" to different degrees, but since the BRB does not give us a degree of "on," we have to assume that any degree of "on" is correct, since any degree of "on" is still "on."

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I guess you don't get it! You are saying that in order to be "off" you need to be completely off. Is this correct? Moving off, is now by your thoughts and interpretations that the model is less on then before. Regardless of whether or not the model is now more off then it was before, is it still on the table? (also I am not moving off the table I am moving to get around this building, my intention is to keep the model on the board so I am not moving off) Why do you get to arbitrarly get to determine these things? Addtionaly, yes you have made the composition fallacy. I have given you the exact defention, and exact example of what you are doing to make your postion a fallacy.

Here we go again, you judge the whole based on a part..... .000001 of the model is on the table, the entire model is on the table. That is what it sounds like when you say partially on is on. Compostion fallacy period. You saying it's not, does not make it so.

No, I most certainly do get it. The English language says: to be "off" you need to be completely off.

Yes, even though you are still "on" the table while you are moving around the building, you are moving off of the table while you are moving. The word moving means currently going in the direction of. Off means being unsupported. So moving off means: currently going in the direction of becoming unsupported. This means that even though you are "on" during your move, you were going in the direction of becoming unsupported.

I'm not saying that you are "off" during your move, but you're certainly fulfilling the requirements for "Moving off".

Again, no one is making that logical fallacy. If you don't understand that the word "on" means supported by, and can't understand that being partially supported by something is still being supported by it, then you're not understanding English. The model (as a whole) is partially supported by the table. It therefore qualifies as being "on" the table by the English language.

@ nosferatoo - Wow that was harsh. I agree with KP that until GW rules on this we don't really know. It shocks me the harsh tone you are allowed to use here.

SaintHazard wrote:Nos has been saying this the whole damn thread, but apparently nobody is listening.

The BRB gives us an unqualified statement. "On."

It says neither "fully on" nor "partially on," merely "on."

Both "fully on" and "partially on" satisfy the requirement to be "on" the board. They're "on" to different degrees, but since the BRB does not give us a degree of "on," we have to assume that any degree of "on" is correct, since any degree of "on" is still "on."

Quite right.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:@ nosferatoo - Wow that was harsh. I agree with KP that until GW rules on this we don't really know. It shocks me the harsh tone you are allowed to use here.

He is harsh because no-one bloody listened to him the first seventy-billion times he said it. People have a limit you know.

You agree with KP just because Nos is being harsh? Makes perfect sense. GW don't need to rule on it because the rules are clear. Do you need GW to tell you what the letter "a" means too?

Steelmage99 wrote:Why hasn't this thread been locked with a;

"It seems we are going around in circles."

or a;

"Yeah, it seems we are about done here."

or just a picture of a kitten or a surprised-looking cute asian girl?

I vote for the surprised-looking cute Asian girl.

gwar no need for theatrics man. This is not the end of the world by any means. It would be nice if people could respect each others opinions but... Oh well.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:gwar no need for theatrics man. This is not the end of the world by any means. It would be nice if people could respect each others opinions but... Oh well.

If the person actually admitted it was their opinion, that would be fine. WHen they are claiming those are the rules, and have done so now for 22 pages without offering a shred of actual proof from the rules - thats a different thing.

Additionally would you appreciate being misquoted in order to construct a case that you are making a fallacious argument?

GW dont need to FAQ what "onto" means because the English language does it perfectly well.

You know you have valid points but don't let other people drag you down.. You are a cool guy. :-)

It's just the repetition after 22 pages of what was said page 1, and that DR, KP et al have come no closer to refuting.

This reminds me of that picture that says arguing on the internet is like running in the.....

Nah, the XKCD cartoon posted a few pages back was perfect...for some reason trying to get someone to finally realise the difference between on and off, and that applying rules commutatively isnt a winning strategy, is quite addictive...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nah, the XKCD cartoon posted a few pages back was perfect...for some reason trying to get someone to finally realise the difference between on and off, and that applying rules commutatively isnt a winning strategy, is quite addictive...

Until the high blood pressure kills you.

Still waiting for the cute Asian girl picture....

Gorkamorka wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Here we go again, you judge the whole based on a part..... .000001 of the model is on the table, the entire model is on the table. That is what it sounds like when you say partially on is on. Compostion fallacy period. You saying it's not, does not make it so.

...so you misquoting what we're saying so that it is a compositional fallacy makes it a compositional fallacy? I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy for that...

Noone is saying that if it is partially on then it is entirely on. It's not entirely on.
But it is on.

You are saying that it fullfils the requirement of on yes? Again, what it sounds like you are saying when partially on is (ON). I had to isolate that particular part of the sentence so you can see it. You are putting an assumption into what you have read. I am doing the same. There is a catch though. You seems to be working under the assumption that partially is allowed. As for Nos I care not for your insults and degredation, you by attacking me have created another problem for yourself. I will let you figure out which is which on the bottom of the page. I am sorely disappointed in you and am truely let down by your actions. You are grasping at something and using your own interpretation as law. DR has anwsered your question about models needing to be on the table, he has also given you what part of the board the model takes up (base/Hull) and yet that does not seem to make you realize that your argument is wrong. Also I have given you playing area, which you have seem to have discarded with all the care of a wanton child, so as to not have your arguement be wrong, and yet it is still wrong. When you put those two things together any move that does not finish with the base/hull on the table is an illegal move. This is where you need to look really hard because there is just no arguing it with you anymore because it has come down to personal attacks. If any part of the model is not occupying the playing area it is not a legal move. PERIOD. Have a nice day hope this thread remains open.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
You are saying that it fullfils the requirement of on yes? Again, what it sounds like you are saying when partially on is (ON). I had to isolate that particular part of the sentence so you can see it. You are putting an assumption into what you have read. I am doing the same. There is a catch though. You seems to be working under the assumption that partially is allowed. As for Nos I care not for your insults and degredation, you by attacking me have created another problem for yourself. I will let you figure out which is which on the bottom of the page. I am sorely disappointed in you and am truely let down by your actions. You are grasping at something and using your own interpretation as law. DR has anwsered your question about models needing to be on the table, he has also given you what part of the board the model takes up (base/Hull) and yet that does not seem to make you realize that your argument is wrong. Also I have given you playing area, which you have seem to have discarded with all the care of a wanton child, so as to not have your arguement be wrong, and yet it is still wrong. When you put those two things together any move that does not finish with the base/hull on the table is an illegal move. This is where you need to look really hard because there is just no arguing it with you anymore because it has come down to personal attacks. If any part of the model is not occupying the playing area it is not a legal move. PERIOD. Have a nice day hope this thread remains open.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Continually referencing logical fallacies incorrectly really doesn't help your argument.
Nor does continually referencing unrelated rules or text that doesn't actually contain any supporting rules.

For about the 500th time, partially on is on. It's not fully on, but the rules don't ask for fully on.
They ask for on, and being partially on counts as being on in the english language. I'm not sure what language you're using.

"You must be fully on the table, because a model takes up the area of it's base" isn't an actual argument that shows anything. Sure, a model takes up the area of it's base... but being partially on is still on and the rules still don't ask for fully on. We're back at square one.
"A model must be fully on the playing field" isn't an argument, because the rules don't ever actually say it in any context relating to this situation. Find me a rule that actually specifically says this.
"There is a playing area" isn't an argument, because the rules never define any restrictions on what that means.
All of your arguments are based entirely on shaky extrapolations from very vague text, not on the actual concrete text itself. If the rules don't specifically say it, then you don't have any proof or backing for your argument and need to stop posting like you do and like you have permission to add clauses to the rules governing how you think they should play out.

"You seems to be working under the assumption that partially is allowed." No assumptions are involved. Unless you can prove that any of the perfectly legal actions involved are illegal, or that the result is specifically labeled illegal (or that partially on isn't on in the English language), then the action is legal. You can't, and your "grasping" at all these unspecific or unrelated rules is proof enough.

Also, using personal insults ("wanton child", etc.) after your tirade against Nos using them is rather hypocritical... don't you think?

Wow 22 pages and flamy. I am shutting this puppy down for the good of humanity. I think you're just repeating yourselves at this point.
Clearly its time for another picture of the Yoda of the Weiner world.