Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6296912" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Come on man.  Your definitions in 619 are cherry picked to include only the usage of regeneration which includes tissue regeneration.  That is not the only usage in common vernacular and certainly not the only usage that merriam webster has available.  This is absolutely ridiculous that we're here, but of the 3 transitive verb usages for regenerate, the reference to physical tissue regeneration is but one:Regenerate and regeneration have plenty of common usage in various sciences and every day life that does not refer to actual tissue regeneration in a biological organism.Apparently you had been perfectly clear as my surmise was spot on.  What you were doing was subbing your position of HP as meat and regeneration as tissue regeneration and then calling pemerton out for bad form (apparently gratuitously argumentative) for using the actual, explicit definitions within the ruleset (which do not comport with your own) and making inferences based on those actual definitions was correct.  I was just hoping that you were doing something different.  Calling someone gratuitously argumentative because they don't agree with your (misapplied) definitions, which also don't happen to be the only orthodox usages in common english, is hard to swallow.That is well and good.  However, again, you are:1)  Asserting your position of HP being "a person's health" or a proxy for their tissue/meat, etc.and2)  Begging the question that any reference to regeneration must, in order to retain coherency, apply itself toward your position of HP as meat as outlined in 1 (which naturally needs to be soft tissue regeneration in a biological organism rather than a reference to a mushy game concept of HP).Unfortunately for your position, 1 doesn't apply (as has been outlined).  2 also explicitly doesn't apply, either by itself (as it is defined) or as applicable to 1 (which is not meat or "a person's health"; soft tissue).You can state that you're giving 4e's designers (Heinsoo et al) the benefit of the doubt that they aren't incompetent all you'd like.  Obviously, the implication here is that we who appreciate the ruleset can take the poison pill of either (i) choosing to call the designer's incompetent or (ii) wave the white flag against the (insufferable) onslaught against the ruleset that it is either partially (or wholly incoherent) or has little to no regard for the fiction (and is just a tactical skirmish game).  Not going to swallow it.  The designers knew what they were doing.  HPs does not need to be any specific portion (or any at all) of soft tissue/meat.  They can be mostly or wholly (and the ruleset makes clear they are) a pool of plot protection or heroic staying power.  Regeneration therefore does not interact with or apply to the soft tissue that HPs are not.  Just as HP are open descriptor and left up to the table to justify what is happening in the fiction, regeneration is equally open descriptor.  It is not soft tissue restoration on a regular schedule.  It is the restoration of the pool of plot protection or heroic staying power for a PC, scheduled to occur at the start of the actor's turn.  If the regeneration has the Divine, Primal, or Arcane Keyword, then a table may map the fiction to miraculous, magical troll regeneration of "shrodinger's wounds" at their discretion.  Or they may not.  4th edition is a broad descriptor ruleset that intentionally, and transparently (just like 13th Age - also Heinsoo's ruleset) opens up the fiction by making the rules elements marriage to in-fiction elements less constrained (Regeneration being available thematic mechanics for the Rocky or John McClain archetypes rather than just for Wolverine).  Clearly that is not your preference.  That doesn't make it incomprehensible.  It doesn't make the designers incompetent.  And it doesn't make pemerton a contrarian or gratuitously argumentative.</blockquote>

Verification