Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 199989" data-attributes="member: 537">Correct.Chapter and verse, please. Remember, you're the one who started this off with a silly rules lawyering stance.I'll also point out that if you're going to wander off from strict rules lawyering into arguments of plausibility and reasonableness, I see no reason not to allow adamantine arrows. They are both plausible and reasonable, despite your, shall we say, &quot;original&quot; interpretation of the rules. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Get your argument straight: are you interpreting the rules (a meta-game argument), or are you providing an in-game rationale? The two are distinctly different.This does not follow. Revise your elementary logic and get back to me.I don't have to show I'm right. You're the one who made a bizarre assertion in the first place, and I've pointed it out.Stupidity has nothing to do with the rules. See above re: metagame vs ingame.Lameness has nothing to do with the rules. See above re: metagame vs ingame.That's your problem.Cease with the pointless sophistry. &quot;Magic&quot; in this sense is clearly a reference to any in-game phenomenon that has no counterpart in real life, and adamantine -- an &quot;ultrahard metal&quot; that provides a nebulous benefit to weapons and armour -- fits the bill.I don't have to provide chapter and verse for a reasonableness and plausibility argument. Learn the difference between metagame and in-game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 199989, member: 537"] Correct. Chapter and verse, please. Remember, you're the one who started this off with a silly rules lawyering stance. I'll also point out that if you're going to wander off from strict rules lawyering into arguments of plausibility and reasonableness, I see no reason not to allow adamantine arrows. They are both plausible and reasonable, despite your, shall we say, "original" interpretation of the rules. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Get your argument straight: are you interpreting the rules (a meta-game argument), or are you providing an in-game rationale? The two are distinctly different. This does not follow. Revise your elementary logic and get back to me. I don't have to show I'm right. You're the one who made a bizarre assertion in the first place, and I've pointed it out. Stupidity has nothing to do with the rules. See above re: metagame vs ingame. Lameness has nothing to do with the rules. See above re: metagame vs ingame. That's your problem. Cease with the pointless sophistry. "Magic" in this sense is clearly a reference to any in-game phenomenon that has no counterpart in real life, and adamantine -- an "ultrahard metal" that provides a nebulous benefit to weapons and armour -- fits the bill. I don't have to provide chapter and verse for a reasonableness and plausibility argument. Learn the difference between metagame and in-game. [/QUOTE]

Verification