Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Magus_Jerel" data-source="post: 147233" data-attributes="member: 3940">Sigil - you have the crux identified - yes... And I can give you the entire argument as it stands;but you have the WRONG definition that I am &quot;abusing&quot; here.&nbsp; I am not abusing MEA or partial action - I am &quot;abusing&quot; double move.&nbsp; This is why your a and b counterpoints don't work, and why you make the following statement.THAT - is what I need to defeat your counterpoint. - nothing more or less.&nbsp; All I do to start this whole process, is actually take the conventional system to its full extreme conclusion. It is because the game is treating them as the &quot;one action&quot; that I can proceed to &quot;reverse engineer&quot; the process.The argument &quot;abuses&quot; the definition of double move.&nbsp; When I look at &quot;Double Move&quot; - I read the following text.And herein - lies the rub -The &quot;assumption&quot; of both Standard A = double move and double move = MEA + MEA rests right here, and nowhere else.&nbsp; The former relies upon the words &quot;special standard action&quot; and the later the description &quot;move then a move&quot;.You didn't have to.&nbsp; What I needed was two specific cases however - not one. I need the fact that &quot;double move&quot; is a &quot;standard action&quot;(albeit a special one) and I need the &quot;standard action&quot; defined as a &quot;partial action plus a MEA&quot;.&nbsp; At that point - go syllogistic, not ballistic <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />a double move is a standard action (albeit a special one)a standard action is a partial action plus a MEATherefore, a double move is a partial action plus a MEAA &quot;move and then a move&quot; is a double moveA double move is a partial action plus a move.Therefore, A move and then a move is a partial action plus a move.ergo -A move is a partial action.Now - if you can assail my reading &quot;double move&quot; as, to wit:&nbsp;as both a MEA and and then a MEA(a move and then a move?)ortake &quot;double move&quot; completely out of the category of standard action (special standard action is not a standard action?)Then you can attack via false assumption the equation and establish your inequality in place of my equality.&nbsp; But, I don't think that you can - which is why I amg going to have to say that you cannot induce the ineqality WITHOUT becoming circular and denying that the &quot;double move&quot; uses the &quot;full potential&quot; of a standard action.&nbsp; Thing is - when and if players find Schrodinger's cats - somebody always winds up not liking the interpretation that comes out.We can invoke the good old sola scriptura here, but if you are going to have debate about rules - you have to toss that accursed &quot;rule 0 thing&quot; - the GM is always right.&nbsp; Neither of us is the GM - when in pure debate mode.&nbsp; Rule 0 - applies in the context of a campaing and a setting; not a rulebook.&nbsp; We are arguing - who IS using a rule 0 ... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Magus_Jerel, post: 147233, member: 3940"] Sigil - you have the crux identified - yes... And I can give you the entire argument as it stands; but you have the WRONG definition that I am "abusing" here. I am not abusing MEA or partial action - I am "abusing" double move. This is why your a and b counterpoints don't work, and why you make the following statement. THAT - is what I need to defeat your counterpoint. - nothing more or less. All I do to start this whole process, is actually take the conventional system to its full extreme conclusion. It is because the game is treating them as the "one action" that I can proceed to "reverse engineer" the process. The argument "abuses" the definition of double move. When I look at "Double Move" - I read the following text. And herein - lies the rub - The "assumption" of both Standard A = double move and double move = MEA + MEA rests right here, and nowhere else. The former relies upon the words "special standard action" and the later the description "move then a move". You didn't have to. What I needed was two specific cases however - not one. I need the fact that "double move" is a "standard action"(albeit a special one) and I need the "standard action" defined as a "partial action plus a MEA". At that point - go syllogistic, not ballistic :) a double move is a standard action (albeit a special one) a standard action is a partial action plus a MEA Therefore, a double move is a partial action plus a MEA A "move and then a move" is a double move A double move is a partial action plus a move. Therefore, A move and then a move is a partial action plus a move. ergo - A move is a partial action. Now - if you can assail my reading "double move" as, to wit: as both a MEA and and then a MEA (a move and then a move?) or take "double move" completely out of the category of standard action (special standard action is not a standard action?) Then you can attack via false assumption the equation and establish your inequality in place of my equality. But, I don't think that you can - which is why I amg going to have to say that you cannot induce the ineqality WITHOUT becoming circular and denying that the "double move" uses the "full potential" of a standard action. Thing is - when and if players find Schrodinger's cats - somebody always winds up not liking the interpretation that comes out. We can invoke the good old sola scriptura here, but if you are going to have debate about rules - you have to toss that accursed "rule 0 thing" - the GM is always right. Neither of us is the GM - when in pure debate mode. Rule 0 - applies in the context of a campaing and a setting; not a rulebook. We are arguing - who IS using a rule 0 ... :) [/QUOTE]

Verification