Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5321935" data-attributes="member: 71571">Removed from play's write up as a condition, unless it's in essentials, has yet to have a printing of it as a condition.That part is not in dispute.  Grab is an attack, not a condition.I relent this, and if a power says 'The target is grabbed' then it is invoking the grabbed condition.Regardless, as you state, Grab is a power.  Grabbed is a condition.  Okay.  Two different things.The result of the grab power is the grabbed condition.  So yes, of course, if a power grabs a target, the target will be grabbed.  That's what grab does.  It is, as you state, a power that applies the grabbed condition.  It is logically impossible to apply the grab power successfully and not have it end in a grabbed condition.  That's what grab does.1)  Bigby's was not created when a Grabbed condition existed.  So arguments saying that 'it must refer to a condition' are inherently flawed.  2)  If it invokes the grab action/power, then the result of that power is the grabbed condition.  A power can refer to the results of its own effects like that.  Grab and grabbed are not the same thing, as you keep repeating.  Grab is the power.  Grabbed is the condition.The power, as it is written, applies the grab power, then that power applies the grabbed condition, and the power then refers to the condition applied by the power.Your argument that it must not has no precident.  Do X to Y means to Do X.  X is defined in this case.There's two ways to look at it, both supported by the game, complete with powers that use that template. 1)  When the power tells you to grab a target, you apply the grab power as it is written, applying that powers target, attack, and effect lines just as you would apply any other power evoked by another.   (See:  Direct the Strike as an example of how a power does this)2)  When the power tells you to grab a target, you apply the grab power, using the applicable lines of the main power when they conflict with the grab power.  (See:  Commander's Strike as an example of this)Yours, that Grab doesn't mean Grab, is nonsensible.And for every power that says 'The target is grabbed' you'd have an agreement from me.However your argument is not that.  Your argument is that 'You grab the target' is somehow mystically not actually using the grab power on the target, that it is somehow the grabbed condition and not the grab power because in your mind, grab =/= grab.You said it yourself.  Grab is a power, it does a specific thing.  You cannot have grab be a specific power and has specific parameters and then have it not be that specific power and have those specific parameters just because it does not agree with your interpretation.Your options, to argue with full faith, are 2)Grab is a power, in which cause powers that tell you to grab a target invoke that power.Grab is not a power, in which case powers that tell you to grab a target invoke that action.You do not get a third option:  Grab is a power, but powers that tell you to grab a target use some other unrelated thing with a different name because it's convenient to make a point.I've retracted that.  But my point stands regardless of whether 'grab' is a power, an action, or a three headed wombat from the planet Gortexia.  The powers are explicitly calling it because they are mentioning by verbatim and name.You have failed to make the connection that 'you grab the target' is not evoking the grab power.  That's the flaw in your argument.  Unfortunately 'Cause Grabbed is a condition' is not a sufficient counterargument or contradiction to 'Grab is grab.'Removed from play isn't mentioned in the PHB on anything.  Nor is it relevant to the argument.  You've focused too much on the 'Grabbed is a condition' element (which I have relented) and not enough on the no power in question says that a target is grabbed part of the argument, which is what you need to invoke said grabbed condition. Wait, I thought grab was the power, and grabbed was the condition?Which stance do you have?It does.  It says 'You grab the target.'  How much more 'stating so' do you need?  Grab is a specific power.  There is no second grab power.  And, as you've pointed out repeatedly, 'grabbed' is some other thing, a condition.  I thought the name of the condition was 'grabbed'.  You keep changing the definitions on me.Is the name of the thing 'grabbed' or 'grab'?  I cannot argue against someone who changes the definitions on me mid-argument.  That's not fair debate. I don't avoid it, because it is not a fact.Step 1)  Bigby's uses the grab power on the target.Step 2)  The grab power gives the target the grabbed conditionStep 3)  Bigby's refers to the grabbed condition you've applied by it's use of the grab power.It's not refering to the same thing.  One is the power, the other is the condition.  As you've pointed out yourself, they are two different things.  Different rules constructs, one of which is the result of the other.And I'm not.  I've already relented that... it, of course, doesn't mean you can ignore basic tautologies either.Again, that's the province of houseruling and I encourage it.  I think it's cool to use powers to grab things you should not grab, personally.That's not the same thing, however, as understanding a basic tautology.Grab and grabbed are not the same thing, by your own claim.The burden is on you to prove that grab and grab are not the same thing.  Grabbed is a condition.  Grab is a power.  Now that you've proven grab is a power, prove that grab is not a power... without undermining your entire argument.That's the real elephant in this room, and while you've picked apart the 'grabbed is not a condition' that's merely a strawman.  What you really have to prove (and have failed to even address) is that grab is both a power and not a power.  Prove that, and you have a point.  Ignore that, and you're just making crap up.Moreover, think of grokkability.  The power tells you to grab something.  You look in the index of your book and go... ah yes... that is what this is doing.  To grab something means to do this.  And you're trying to claim that grab is some other thing... that actually has not existed in print for years, despite the fact that an entire build of fighter is based on its use?I can believe the rules changed.  I cannot believe that the rules require knowing or refering to a reference that is not in print nor an errata of the same, that adjudicating Martial Power 2 and Bigby's Icy Grasp required a time machine to go into the future so you can get essentials so you know those powers are not actually grabbing the target, but merely applying the grabbed condition.  When you have two interpretations, one that goes 'Hey, this is written in the core book and works fine' and the other goes 'Hey, you have to look at future books to figure this out' I will choose the one that does not require using time travel.  YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification