Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="crashtestdummy" data-source="post: 6803215" data-attributes="member: 6803354">If you don't read the original statement the way I did, then that just begs the question as to what is the strategy that's failed? If it's not articulated, how can you say it's failed?As a contrived example of why the idea that stopping enemies from attacking is not universally a good idea, consider the situation where you have a choice of expending resources to ensure you attack first, or simply sending in the tank with AC 23. If you know that the opponent will only ever be able to hit you on a 20, then which is the better strategy -- allowing them to attack with a 5% chance of hitting, or expending resources to prevent that 5% chance? I'd say the letting them attack is the better strategy if you can be sure that the number of chances they get to attack is very low, even if it's non-zero. Spending resources unnecessarily just to meet some ideal is, to me, the worse strategy.Having said that, most of the time the idea of trying to stop enemies from attacking is a good idea, but it's not the 'perfect' strategy that is implied by the opening statement.</blockquote>