Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4909072" data-attributes="member: 71571">I'm going to sum up the problem with this argument in one very simple way.You've argued that we're making assumptions, and that Precision only applies to possible critical hits.I rebut with this simple statement:You've assumed, despite evidence to the contrary, that 'score a critical hit' is not itself a situation that is a 'possible critical hit.''Score' in the context of critical hits is not a signal of a definate critical hit.  Precision itself calls the term by name, and without dint of an altering verb implying possibility, only that of permission.Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Holy Ardor is an automatic hit.  What you've supplied simply isn't good enough, and doesn't hold to be true, as proven by counterexample.Furthermore, you've committed a fallacy, that just because other examples work correctly, that removing a single word will create the opposite intention.  This itself is disproven by showing examples where that specific word's presence or absense has no impact on the situation.So, the burden of proof is therefore on you, to prove with a means other than pointing out the absense of the word 'can' (a method that is disproven), that the ability provides an automatic hit.  If you can do this, you have a case that it is an exception to the Precision rules.  If you cannot do this, you do not have a case. It is as simple as that.  Because now you're assuming that your premise is true despite the fact that premise is proven false.  If you wish to present your conclusion, you require a new argument with new premises.</blockquote>

Verification