Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[N8Ball]

In an exception based system yes they do. We're not talking about a literal math subset as your link implies. We're talking about game rules and to assume that they have some sort of math subset like capability where if you are part of a subset you are part of it's larger superset is just as much nonsense as the following:

All elephants are grey. I am grey. Therefore I am an elephant.

Your example make an error that my example does not.
All elephants (the subset)
things that are grey (the superset)

just because you fall into the superset does not mean that you fall into the subset. BUT My example was of the form:

I am an elephant, therefore I am grey, I said GREY, Not gay!

My answer is if you don't do it in that order then you wind up with your (in my opinion) nonsensical argument about a crit that is a miss and how that can't possibly be.

-> If you don't do it in that order, you end up with a crit before you see of you hit normally.
-> This is just like when you get an automatic hit, you know you hit even before checking the normal hit rules.

In both cases you can satisfy the miss rule, but you don't call it a miss because we know that hits and misses are mutually exclusive events. (i.e. they have no intersection in set theory parlance)

But no one thinks the "automitic hit" rules allow "hit and miss" or are nonsensical.

If we're going to go with your assertion that all crits are hit math subset theory then you have to determine if you hit FIRST.

Only the normal method of determining a crit requires that you check for a hit first, the holy ardor rules check something else entirely and send you right into the crit circle, without the normal requirements for crit or hit.

 

[DracoSuave]

Only the normal method of determining a crit requires that you check for a hit first, the holy ardor rules check something else entirely and send you right into the crit circle, without the normal requirements for crit or hit.

That is the failed assumption, that Holy Ardor permits you to skip the expressly written rules for how to adjudicate when you score a critical hit. Holy Ardor does not say that, so you -still- have to exercise the rules involved. If Precision said 'Some abilties say you might score a critical hit' you'd have a point, and I'd look at it differently.

Precision -does not say that.- It says, verbatim, that it applies to abilities 'that allow you to score a critical hit' and Holy Ardor -is- an ability that allows you to do that.

So, to prove that Holy Ardor is an exception, you have to either

A) Prove Holy Ardor does not allow you to score a critical hit (which would undermine your argument)
B) Prove Holy Ardor has text saying that it has an automatic hit. (which it does not)

The case you are trying, C) is that its terminology implies an automatic hit is overruled by Precision because Precision -explicitly- calls out that -exact- terminology.

 

[N8Ball]

That is the failed assumption, that Holy Ardor permits you to skip the expressly written rules for how to adjudicate when you score a critical hit.

Wait, so you're saying that rolling doubles alone with Holy Ardor DOES NOT allow you expressly to "score a critical hit"?

Because that's a fundamentally different argument than the previous arguments that have been made which are that some critical hits are misses. It does skip the normal rules for adjudicating when you score a critical hit, because it says you "score a critical hit". You can still argue that a crit can be a miss, but that's a different argument.

B) Prove Holy Ardor has text saying that it has an automatic hit. (which it does not)

Holy Ardor does not provide for an "automatic hit". It doesn't need to. "Automatic hit" is well defined (and doesn't tell you when you miss) and there are plenty of examples of other crits and hits that are not "automatic hits". (see also post 245) So not providing for "automatic hit" does not enforce a miss.

 

[Flipguarder]

Wait, so you're saying that rolling doubles alone with Holy Ardor DOES NOT allow you expressly to "score a critical hit"?

Because that's a fundamentally different argument than the previous arguments that have been made which are that some critical hits are misses. It does skip the normal rules for adjudicating when you score a critical hit, because it says you "score a critical hit". You can still argue that a crit can be a miss, but that's a different argument.

No, what he's saying is "scoring a critical hit" through Holy Ardor does not forgo the rules for adjudicating critical hits. Which includes determining whether or not the attack hits.

Holy Ardor does not provide for an "automatic hit". It doesn't need to. "Automatic hit" is well defined (and doesn't tell you when you miss) and there are plenty of examples of other crits and hits that are not "automatic hits". (see also post 245) So not providing for "automatic hit" does not enforce a miss.

Yes, but it must provide SOME sort of mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing. We both admit it does not qualify for the "automatic hit" described in the precision rule (because it doesn't act as though it was rolled 20), and that's all fine and good. As you say, it doesn't need to. But it does need SOME way of hitting without the attack roll hitting the targeted defense. It seems that you think "scoring a critical hit" skips all o' that. We would like to know why, because there doesn't seem to be precedent for this. You would think that if it were the case as you say, and this were an entirely new scenario of a critical hit that does not have precision apply to it.

And you seem to use the omission of the word "can" (Which by the way, as a firm tactic of rule definition, has no precedence as well.) as your single piece of evidence.

I would say your position is shaky at best.

 

[Trebor62]

Holy Ardor does not provide for an "automatic hit". It doesn't need to. "Automatic hit" is well defined (and doesn't tell you when you miss) and there are plenty of examples of other crits and hits that are not "automatic hits". (see also post 245) So not providing for "automatic hit" does not enforce a miss.[/quote]

But it does provide for an automatic miss on double 1's which it would not need to do if it was neccessary for Holy Ardor to hit the targets defense as a 1 is already defined as a miss by the general rules.

This implies that the general rules do not apply to Holy Ardor. If the general rules do apply to Holy Ardor then it is poorly written and should not have mentioned the more resticted 1's always miss but the equal valid and broader rule that Holy Ardor must hit the targets defense which would include double 1's miss as the the miss rule states a 1 always misses.

If it did mention this instead of double 1's misses I don't think there would be any dispute about when Holy Ardor crits.

 

[keterys]

If it did mention this instead of double 1's misses I don't think there would be any dispute about when Holy Ardor crits.

Yeaaah... I'm pretty sure there still would be, even if there might be less. Nothing else, some people playing or planning to play one will argue hard just to make it more powerful.

The double 1s is why I actually believe the intent (but not written) is for it to work on double 2s and such.

 

[Artoomis]

...Yes, but it must provide SOME sort of mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing...

Ah, but it does.

Roll doubles and "score a critical hit." It's difficult to be more definitive than that, given that "score a critical hit" is a defined game term - defined in the critical hit rules.

We just neatly avoided the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing.

The lack of the word "can," the new mechanic of rolling doubles and the language about double ones not scoring a critical hit, together provide the mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing.

They actually were quite clear in the language, but could have been more complete to avoid the confusion we see here (and with CustServ) or re-written it so as to be clear that the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing still applies in this new mechanic.

 

[Flipguarder]

See that's pretty much my WHOLE problem with your argument Artoomis. You assume that the omission of the word "can" makes this an entirely new mechanic. I just don't believe it's that different from other features that create other crit possibilities.

 

[Artoomis]

See that's pretty much my WHOLE problem with your argument Artoomis. You assume that the omission of the word "can" makes this an entirely new mechanic. I just don't believe it's that different from other features that create other crit possibilities.

Not just that (though that's pretty big, given that they use the word "can" in every other place that modifies the critical hit rules), but also the new mechanic of rolling doubles. That, and the mention of rolling ones being an exception.

I think its more than a coincidence that the new mechanic (rilling doubles) is accompanied by the language that omits the word "can."

I am perfectly ready to accept that leaving the word "can" out may have been an error, but that's an RAI vs. RAW argument. As written, it really is astonishingly clear language - roll doubles score a critical hit.

 

[DracoSuave]

Ah, but it does.

Roll doubles and "score a critical hit." It's difficult to be more definitive than that, given that "score a critical hit" is a defined game term - defined in the critical hit rules.

Then apply those rules. Precision is one of them. If you claim that it is defined in the rules, then you -must- apply the rules you have just admitted apply to this situation.

You have a situation where you have one rule telling you that only a natural 20 is an automatic hit. You have another rule telling you -exactly- how to adjudicate what is a hit and a miss. You have a third rule that says the first rule applies in situations where criticals can occur on other than a natural 20.

And you are countering with 'I believe they implied otherwise' based on what?

The thing is, those who claim Precision works -ARE- applying the rules for 'score a critical hit.' ALL of them. Not just ignoring what doesn't please them because, wait... they said you miss on twin 1s?

Did it not occur to you that the rules don't handle what happens when you crit -and- roll a natural 1? Or that you might have conflicting general rules that don't -exactly- describe what happens? And that in this, the only case where that occurs, they just spelt it out so there'd be no confusion?

No, instead, you decide it's an implication that the attack must automaticly hit in those instances, forgoing the rules for both scoring a critical hit, and the basic hit mechanics... because you have -faith- that it should be that way based on the designer's intentions.

Well I have -faith- that had they -intended- it to automaticly hit, they'd have said 'You hit, and that hit is a critical hit.' Or 'You hit, and you score a critical hit.'

IF they'd intended for you to hit when you roll doubles, they would have -SAID SO.- Directly. No faith. No implication. They'd have included those two little words. They did not. So, they probably did NOT intend for this ability to work differently or be an exception to the rules -that already exist- as a framework to tell you what to do with this.

That's all. No 'You Hit' = no 'intended it to hit.'

This is beyond the point of rediculous. Will the next argument present a ouija board now?