Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 1896756" data-attributes="member: 307">No, I understood it, your problem with my response appears to be that I reject it as a viable argument of any kind, as it is based upon a patently silly premise.And we aren't talking about &quot;real combat&quot;, which makes your attempts to analogize to it even sillier. The ideas that you can show a game mnechanic is broken by inventing actions outsied of the scope of the game rules and &quot;prove&quot; that a rule is silly, because you could break that rule if you invented a new one is, quite simply, an empty argument.But the question is why not? If you accept the existence of the Cleave maneuver to begin with, then why should this special maneuver and training not applicable in that situation, even when it is not applicable when you fake an attack against an imaginary opponent?Your examples are entirely nonsensical. As is your argument.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 1896756, member: 307"] No, I understood it, your problem with my response appears to be that I reject it as a viable argument of any kind, as it is based upon a patently silly premise. And we aren't talking about "real combat", which makes your attempts to analogize to it even sillier. The ideas that you can show a game mnechanic is broken by inventing actions outsied of the scope of the game rules and "prove" that a rule is silly, because you could break that rule if you invented a new one is, quite simply, an empty argument. But the question is why not? If you accept the existence of the Cleave maneuver to [i]begin with[/i], then why should this special maneuver and training not applicable in that situation, even when it is not applicable when you fake an attack against an imaginary opponent? Your examples are entirely nonsensical. As is your argument. [/QUOTE]

Verification