That is absolutely true. Precision is states its case exactly. I have never argued that it doesnt (in fact, I have stated multiple occasions that it does).
But so does doly ardor. What is sais is completely explicate and completely contradicatory to Precision.
All Holy Ardor states is it is an ability that allows you to score critical hits. This is why Precision applies directly to it. Because Precision governs abilities that score critical hits.
It doesn't govern abilities that 'can score a critical hit' It governs abilities that allow you to score critical hits. That's the difference. You're arguing that the absense of the word 'can' excepts Precision from affecting it, but nothing in Precision indicates that -potentiality of a critical hit- is necessary for it to work.
Because class features don't -give- permission to their governing rules to work, the rules just work unless the feature says it does not.
The example of the fireball (read any power that does damage). I could argue that, given a good 80-90% of attack powers stipulate damage, that the base damage stipulated on a power is the general rule and that the boosters to this (Weapon Focus for example) are the specifics. But I wouldnt argue it becaue its an example which is in no way in debate. It is the understood and accepted norm, so we dont even need to apply rules of specific vs general to it. Its comparing apples and oranges
Ah, and that is why your argument fails.
Because it means, catagorically, that a class feature, power, or other specific endevor does not have to state potentiality for rules to govern it in order for those rules to, in fact, govern it. In other words, a specific rule does not have to say 'You -can- do X' in order for rules that govern how 'do X' works apply.
Fireball does not have to state permission to resistance to resist it.
Push powers do not have to state permission for the rule on how pushes work to state movement away.
Teleport powers do not have to state permission for OAs to fail against them.
Ongoing damage does not have to state permission for you to apply only one of each damage type.
And this means one very simple fact.
Some exceptions have specific game rules that govern or restrict how they work. All of the above are exceptions to the rules on how things work. And all of them have -other- rules that govern them and tell you how to adjudicate those exceptions.
In the absense of specific text outlawing those governing rules, you apply those governing rules. So restistance -can- work on fireball. Teleport powers -do- avoid OAs. Ongoing damage of the same type -does not- stack.
Now you said the daggermaster is irrelevant to this discussion (yet you thought comparing fireball damage was?).
It's called disproof by counterexample, where you take the same argument form your opposition presents, and you substitute other premises while retaining the form of the argument intact.
In other words, your argument (that Precision doesn't work because Holy Ardor doesn't mention you 'can' score a critical) is debunked because other instances in the game work fine without that magic word 'can'. Fireball doesn't tell Resist Fire how to do business, Resist Fire tells Fireball what is what. Fireball doesn't say 'can' deal damage? Who cares. Irrelevant to how all this works.
You're saying 'This situation over here must be different because of the absense of a single word.' My rebuttal to that is 'That word is not necessary. Here is why.'
And I have proven it is not necessary, by using other examples of its absense, and noting that its absense does not affect the situation, that its absense does not change how things interract.
You have stated that the word 'can' is necessary for a governing rule to apply. I have proven to you, by counter example, that it is not. It is at this point no longer an 'opinion' that it is unnecessary, it is a proven fact. The word 'can' is not relevant.
At that point, a discussion on the word 'can' becomes a discussion on whether or not it is more elegant to include it or not. And not relevant to the task at hand.
I included him as an example of when precision is applied and pointed out why, so no, its not irrelevant at all because it helps us understand when precision is applied. Same goes for weapon mastery and I could just as easily used them as the example. In both cases, the syntax against them is non explicate and therefore there is no conflict.
But the word 'can' is not necessary for governing rules to work. The word 'can' isn't important because governing rules don't care. So yeah, daggermaster says 'can' but that doesn't matter because Precision is a governing rule, and it applies to the situations it describes. Pushes still move away, even tho the powers in question don't say 'You can push a creature away from you'. Thunderwave doesn't need to permit the push rules to restrict how it works. They just do.
The word 'can' is there for aesthetics, and nothing more. Proven as above. So it's inclusion or non-inclusion is not considered as part of the argument, and is rejected thusly. Please do not continue to insist it matters. It clearly does not.
In other words, Holy Ardor doesn't need to give the rules on what 'score a critical hit' can and cannot do permission to apply. What it has to do is say when those rules do -not- apply, which it hasn't actually done.
)
