Search results

Did anyone realize that this thread was *the* most debated rules thread in the last year? (almost twice as many as the next and near the top for all time) And it took place in the span of only 3 weeks? ....600+ posts.... Impressive. Of course, I only visit the rules section so there may me...

HOLY CRAP! We are putting PAGES on this thread every day. It's hard to keep up without checking multiple times per day, even for me who enjoys this kind of debate. A couple responses caught my eye... I differ from Artoomis slightly on the view of the rolling of the doubles. I think he has...

I'm glad you posted this Keterys because this is exactly what I was asking for a few pages ago (post 304). "What is the fruit of this tree?" Meaning what are the implications of my argument (crit=hit) and what are the implications of a "crit and miss" theory, a path that has yet to be fully...

It seems that these two positions are seriously at odds with one another on the subject of how crits are applied. If I can paraphrase the two camps: Draco is saying that precision is needed to prevent mastery feats from getting an "Automatic hit" on a 19. This is internally consistent with...

There's some other stuff in that post that I really wanted to respond to, but it would have been a distraction from the point I'm trying to get at. Hold it right there. Would you care to back that statement up with some text or something? Where in all the rulebooks does it tell you to cancel...

Good stuff Covert, very crunchy. Though I'm not sure how you decided to put checking for doubles at the end. What is that based on? Why can't (or why wouldn't) you check for doubles as soon as the dice are rolled? Presumably that's when you'd check for a 20 (before step 4) in order to...

Yes, it does. But if it works the way you suggest, what are the consequences? Won't my rogue kick off all kinds of "When you score a critical hit..." abilities while missing within his crit range of 18-20? (see my last 2 posts to CovertOps)

I would agree that the Holy Ardor double-2-miss should be treated as the same as a Daggermasters 18-miss or for that matter any rogue that used a 17-20 crit power (there are 2 in the PHB) but failed to achieve a hitting attack score. Under this intrepretation they would both seem to be crits...

I'm not sure I follow you here. (keep in mind I'm trying to understand your position and it's implications) If I got a critical hit using mastery or some other crit-range enhancing ability, why would I not trigger surprise knockdown regardless of a hit or miss? If I've scored the crit, and...

Actually I would agree with this completely, and for the very same reasons. Crit = hit is the crux of my argument, (along with the permissive language caveat). I would say that though there are no powers that are written like that, there are numerous abilities that trigger on "scoring a...

"Automatic hit" refers to ONE way to skip the normal to hit rules. The text under automatic hit does not say "whenever you skip the hit-resolution it's an automatic hit" or anything of the sort. Until Holy Ardor, it was the only way, but not because it explicitly said it governed all similar...

Draco, if you would like to put MY argument in logical form, then you must assume the things I assume (that the requirements and definition of a thing are distinct parts of the rules). What you described is not what I'm saying, so proving it wrong doesn't really say anything. Your analogy...

I'm not sure I fully understand your objection. There are plenty of examples where the normal requirements for something are overridden (like new ways to get opportunity attacks), but just because you skip the normal requirements, doesn't mean you need to also dispose of the rules on what that...

I see what you're saying, but I disagree that the Hit (or crit) section must be taken as a whole unit. The definitions of those terms (hit/crit) still apply. I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition as you suggest. Also, Prophecy of Doom does not SPECIFICALLY spell out that a hitting...

I wasn't planning on getting back into it, but how can I refuse such a well articulated request for explanation? You present a well stated question that deserves a least a good effort at a worthy response. (Note- my explanation relies on the "permissive" assumption defended elsewhere. I will...

Hah! True enough. I appreciate the honesty with your own arguments, but I was asking if you could shoot some holes in my argument rather than your own. (we'll get you your argument after mine has been shot up ;)) Something in the vein of Covert Ops question to me. Or even better if my...

Well I didn't want to rehash old arguments too much but perhaps this point needs some better explanation. The difference here is in what rules are excepted by the power and what rules remain in force. (that excepted, with an "e", not an "a") I mentioned before that movement generally has...

Not at all enflaming. Actually a quite reasonable and well articulated summary on your issues with the precedent, and permissive language intrepretations of our position. Such a well reasoned and level headed response suggests that you truly do understand our position. Thus, there is no...

What? So you're saying that because he agreed with your clear articulation which used elements that we've been trying to get at for PAGES, that Nifft is dishonest for pointing that out? That's not dishonest, that's just good debating. You've been put in check, sir. Your move.

That is a very nice summary. I think we've run around the mechanics of the crit rules enough to form 2 pretty well developed paradigms about how the crit rules work. The lowest level semantics and interactions on both sides of the argument have been discussed to an impressive level of detail...