Your argument seems to be based on the wording of that sentence rather than the semantics of being dazed. It is clear that being Dazed means you only get one action. But because they had to word it the way they did to account for Free Actions, most likely, you now see it as a filter.
And it is also clear that not being dazed does not imply that you only take one action. Being dazed is not the same as not being dazed. I thought that would be obvious. The semantics of being dazed are a limitation on what actions you -can take- not on what actions -you get-. Therefore, if you lift the limitation, it no longer applies. The semantics of dazed -MEANS THE WORDING.- That's what semantics IS.
I don't see the point of this question, but no. It is a restriction on what kind of actions you can take. It doesn't restrict in any way how you use your Minor actions.
Because it is worded the same way as dazed. If -that- is a restriction, then dazed which uses the -same- wording is also a restriction that works similiarly.
Again, you're making stuff up. No one said anything about Immediate Actions being recharged at the beginning of the turn. (Especially since you don't get to take Immediate Actions on your turn.) The line "You can't take immediate actions or opportunity actions" works the same exact way the line "You can't flank an enemy" works.
You get one immediate action per round. Things like that 'recharge' at the beginning of your turn, if they work through a recharging mechanism. If actions recharge at the beginning of your turn, immediate actions, which ARE an action, would recharge with the -rest- of your actions. Therefore, dazed, BY YOUR INTERPRETATION, would deny them. Opportunity actions don't work that way because they don't recharge per round, but per turn.
This is just your model of how actions work applied here. That's the point of the argument.
Again, only due to the way YOU interpret Dazed. By my logic, it works fine.
The way you interpret it, by your own admission above, ignores the wording of it for some imagined 'semantics' of how the power works, which as you stated above, doesn't involve the wording of it, and as I have proven above, is not consistant through the various effects of the condition. Mine is consistant throughout the entire condition, works -as written- exactly, and doesn't contradict existing rules.
My interpretation then, being the simpler one, by Occum's Razor, is more likely to be correct.
I of course, don't agree with this, either. If you're Slowed and want to move, you can move up to 2 squares. Not that this scenario would ever come up, but if you somehow lost the Slowed condition mid-move, it's too late. The ghoul juice or freezing cold has already affected your legs when you tried to use them. If you are un-Slowed BEFORE you start moving, you're good, since you now magically or divinely have full use of your motor abilities. I do understand you thinking otherwise though(no I don't), as I guess it seems to add to your argument.
Movement, unfortunately, is on a per-square basis, not declared in wholeness at the beginning. If you have your slow removed, your speed is 6. The walk action says 'move a number of squares up to your speed.' Once your speed becomes 6, you have not yet moved a number of squares up to your speed. This, of course, is if you had it removed on the first square. On the second square, you'd have moved a number of squares up to your speed, so the action is completed before the immediate reaction of the readied action can take place.
I knew you would say this was irrelevant. Yet, it is exactly the way I see Dazed working, which makes it completely relevant to my argument. As I've said, if you are Dazed (at the beginning of your turn in the case of the Cube), that is when you lose your two actions.
And that is under dispute. Dazed does not mention 'at the beginning of your turn' or in any other way indicate the beginning of your turn, so triggered effects are not the same thing as it. If it said 'at the beginning of your turn', you'd have a point. It is -not- analogous, and the argument you craft from it is circular.
'Dazed works at the beginning of your turn, therefore it is like ongoing damage. Because it is like ongoing damage, it works at the beginning of your turn.'
That's why it is irrelevent, because to make it relevant, it must involve assumptions not in evidence, and assumes the truth value of a premise that has yet to be proven to be true.
The same time that you take Ongoing damage. When you lose the Dazed condition or the Ongoing Fire 10 condition, any damage(literal in the case of fire, figurative in the case of lost actions) that was done is done. Just because you don't see Dazed as making you actually lose actions doesn't make this point irrelevant. And for what it's worth, Ongoing damage surely affects the middle of the guy's turn that was just reduced to 0 hit points...
But that is -only- if you accept the -assumption- that dazed is the permanent loss of some resource, rather than, as it is -stated in the damn book-, a restriction on how you may spend that resource. I would agree with you, if the wording on dazed were something else entirely. But it is not, and it does not work the way you describe on the entirety of actions that it restricts.
If you get dazed during your turn, you do not get to take more actions than you've already taken right? That means that dazed is not something that applies at the beginning of your turn, but is rather a continuous effect that restricts your options, rather than one that 'damages' your resources.
If it worked like ongoing damage, then if you got an effect that gave you ongoing damage 10, you'd take that damage immediately, by the same logic that gives you your conclusion for dazed. This does not happen, therefore your argument has an inherent flaw somewhere in it.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, unless the condition states otherwise. (It does not.)
