Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5046103" data-attributes="member: 71571">No.  The argument I made was that in the context of the rules, the rules term 'enemy' is uniquely singular, and refers to a singular person.This might be a unique concept for you, but in games they often take english words and they use them as terms for rules mechanics.  For example, in 'Chutes and Ladders' when you land your piece on a square that is the bottom of an artistic depiction of a ladder, you 'climb that ladder' to the square that is the top of that depiction.  However, you do not literally find a ladder, climb it, and continue the game from your higher altitude.By the same token, in Magic: The Gathering, if you 'damage a player' you do not then physically assault that player and cause him injury.I understand you're not an English major, but this concept is hardly university level thinking here.  This is something I figured out in preschool. It is called 'context' and becomes very important to understanding the English language beyond an elementary school level.Also:  Contrast the myriad definitions of set, and how in poker 'A set of trays' does not in any way refer to a table setting, or a matching pile of waiter's equipment, even tho 'set' and 'trays' can refer to either of those things.  In the context of Poker, it means three cards, each with numerical value of 3.  What it means outside that context is irrelevant to that context.  Also, flush doesn't involve toilets, and straight isn't the opposite of curvature. This sentance makes no sense.  The use of a game term as a game rule is irrelevant to the discussion of that game?  Could you please elaborate as to how this works?  Or is this simply a rationalization for the decent into 'stuff I made up'-land that your rant devolves into? Or is that the definition of enemy.  The definition of enemy is any creature that is not your ally, hostile or not.  Ally is also defined as those who are willing recipients of your powers.  That definition of ally does not exclude non-party members, and technically does not include party members either.   Conversely, enemy neither implicitly includes nor excludes non-party members. There is no neutral case, however.  Non-hostility is not the defining factor for enemies.  Willingness to receive your powers is.  If they (and you) are willing, they are your allies.  If not, they qualify as enemies for the game term.  The rules are -very- specific about that.That's the problem with your argument.  Enemy in the context of the book is defined specificly in the book.  Taking a definition of enemy that is outside that context and claiming that it applies in this specific case is nonrational.  The use of enemy within the context is clearly defined.  It does not suddenly change simply because you want it to.Contrast that with 'leaving a square adjacent to an enemy' in the same rulespace.  Clearly, 'an enemy' is the sense of an indefinate enemy.More over, your definition cannot make sense in the rulesset.  If 'the enemy' refers to the collective of enemies you face, then what does 'the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy' mean?  There's multiple squares that you can attack all your opponents from.  So, that must mean that 'the nearest square' must refer then to the nearest square beside the nearest enemy.However, if that's the case, it becomes impossible to leave a square adjacent to an enemy because that square -must- have been the square nearest to 'the enemy' as you put it.Which would mean that you could never trigger the opportunity attack described in the charge action.  It would be impossible.Because, however, it is clear you can, that square cannot therefore be the 'nearest square adjacent to the enemy' which means that 'the enemy' cannot be the plurality of enemies.</blockquote>

Verification