Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7571221" data-attributes="member: 23751">Your &quot;proof&quot; was based on a False Dichotomy.&nbsp; I presented another way to read the rules other than the two you proposed.&nbsp; You then dismissed it, saying that the actions don't explicitly say what they imply.&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; That's true.&nbsp; It's also true that they don't say that they are instantaneous.&nbsp; they also do not say that you cannot split an action, or that you cannot move in the middle of an action.&nbsp; Those are assumptions you are making.&nbsp; You're pretty free with being okay with assumptions when they support you, but apparently you're the only one that can do that sort of thing.But again, it only has that silly an unintended consequence if you don't accept the implied ability to move during the actions that have duration and involve movement.&nbsp; It ignored other options.&nbsp; I don't know that you are wrong, but as you are ignoring other options and also using some assumptions in your &quot;proof,&quot; I can't say that you are right, either.&nbsp; Your proof isn't as iron clad as you think it is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7571221, member: 23751"] Your "proof" was based on a False Dichotomy. I presented another way to read the rules other than the two you proposed. You then dismissed it, saying that the actions don't explicitly say what they imply. Sure. That's true. It's also true that they don't say that they are instantaneous. they also do not say that you cannot split an action, or that you cannot move in the middle of an action. Those are assumptions you are making. You're pretty free with being okay with assumptions when they support you, but apparently you're the only one that can do that sort of thing. But again, it only has that silly an unintended consequence if you don't accept the implied ability to move during the actions that have duration and involve movement. It ignored other options. I don't know that you are wrong, but as you are ignoring other options and also using some assumptions in your "proof," I can't say that you are right, either. Your proof isn't as iron clad as you think it is. [/QUOTE]

Verification