Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4925550" data-attributes="member: 71571">Alright.Attack a hidden opponent.  Fail to guess the square he is in.You miss.Game.  Set.  Match.The ability does not trump the 'Hitting what you Cannot See' rule.  Therefore the ability does not guarantee a hit within the ruleset.  Therefore it does not guarantee a critical hit.  Therefore you cannot rationally assume it guarantees a critical hit.  Therefore you cannot rationally assume it hits.Therefore you cannot rationally assume it trumps -other- rules that state you do not automaticly hit without -further- evidence to the contrary... which you don't have.Logic 101 states that if your argument is not possible due to evidence, then the argument is somehow flawed.  In this case, the flaw is assuming that 'score a critical hit' is a guarantee of success, which it -is proven- it is not.  Therefore, you cannot use the argument that it is a guarantee of success and therefore trumps rules that say it would fail.Now to prove that Precision applies to it.And I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is explicitly stated in Precision, and -that- is the exact phrase it refers to, thereby becoming evoked by Holy Ardor by dint of Precision being a rule defining that exact sort of ability.  Verbatim.  Therefore -anything- that allows one to "score a critical hit" is subject to Precision.By your own logic.</blockquote>