Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2837442" data-attributes="member: 31734">I merely repeated your last argument.&nbsp; If mine was hyperbole, so was yours.&nbsp; The purpose of my response was to show that both interpretations have a flaw.&nbsp; I'm certainly not arguing just to argue.&nbsp; Did you drink out of the same water as Caliban?&nbsp; You both are being passive aggressive this afternoon.&nbsp;You keep saying that like it makes it true.&nbsp; Actually, I do have rules support and quoted it earlier.&nbsp; We can both show quotes from the spell description to discredit the opposing view, so no gain there.&nbsp; The only factor tipping the balance is the rule I've provided.&nbsp; I have not seen a rule on your side that supports your position.&nbsp; I have yet to see you or anyone explain how you can ignore the save requirement in the main paragraph as I explained in my response to Warmage-in-Onley.&nbsp; You can't quote the text from web as &quot;your&quot; rule when we both use it as a basis of our interpretation.&nbsp; So, what are your explicit, supporting rules?I contend (again) that the only valid interpretation if we are to ignore the &quot;being subject to&quot; rule is to merely impose entangled.&nbsp; Your interpretation does not work because it not only ignores that rule, it ignores the requirement for a save in that paragraph and has no other support that I know about.&nbsp;Exactly the same with your position, isn't it?&nbsp; You claim my rule is not explicit, but I disagree.&nbsp; It's the only explicit rule quoted in this thread (aside from the web description of course which is under debate).&nbsp; Nail, you with me on this, buddy ol' pal?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2837442, member: 31734"] I merely repeated your last argument. If mine was hyperbole, so was yours. The purpose of my response was to show that both interpretations have a flaw. I'm certainly not arguing just to argue. Did you drink out of the same water as Caliban? You both are being passive aggressive this afternoon. You keep saying that like it makes it true. Actually, I do have rules support and quoted it earlier. We can both show quotes from the spell description to discredit the opposing view, so no gain there. The only factor tipping the balance is the rule I've provided. I have not seen a rule on your side that [I]supports[/I] your position. I have yet to see you or anyone explain how you can ignore the save requirement in the main paragraph as I explained in my response to Warmage-in-Onley. You can't quote the text from web as "your" rule when we both use it as a basis of our interpretation. So, what are your explicit, supporting rules? I contend (again) that the only valid interpretation if we are to ignore the "being subject to" rule is to merely impose entangled. Your interpretation does not work because it not only ignores that rule, it ignores the requirement for a save in that paragraph and has no other support that I know about. Exactly the same with your position, isn't it? You claim my rule is not explicit, but I disagree. It's the only explicit rule quoted in this thread (aside from the web description of course which is under debate). Nail, you with me on this, buddy ol' pal? [/QUOTE]

Verification