Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jaelis" data-source="post: 7349454" data-attributes="member: 60210">So would it be correct to say your view is that if a word or phrase in the rules has a common meaning outside the rules, that common meaning has priority over a game-specific definition? So &quot;attack&quot; defaults to the common use, regardless of how it might be defined in another context?I guess that can't quite be right though. For instance, a &quot;melee attack&quot; is a well-defined thing outside the game. If you are in melee with an opponent and do something aggressive to distract them, I think conventionally you would call that a melee attack. But I guess you would not allow someone to use the aid action as an opportunity attack, even though an OA lets you make a melee attack?Or is it that you just feel 'attack' in particular is not a game-defined term and so we should treat it as common language. Whereas maybe 'melee attack' is a game-defined term?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jaelis, post: 7349454, member: 60210"] So would it be correct to say your view is that if a word or phrase in the rules has a common meaning outside the rules, that common meaning has priority over a game-specific definition? So "attack" defaults to the common use, regardless of how it might be defined in another context? I guess that can't quite be right though. For instance, a "melee attack" is a well-defined thing outside the game. If you are in melee with an opponent and do something aggressive to distract them, I think conventionally you would call that a melee attack. But I guess you would not allow someone to use the aid action as an opportunity attack, even though an OA lets you make a melee attack? Or is it that you just feel 'attack' in particular is not a game-defined term and so we should treat it as common language. Whereas maybe 'melee attack' is a game-defined term? [/QUOTE]

Verification