The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Legildur]

This is also condescending.

It does appear that one reason Hyp's post count is so high is that he posts the same thing, over and over again, restating his opinion, regardless of what arguments may have been made against it.

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. Even if someone is usually right, that doesn't mean he's automatically right in all cases.

It is very entertaining to watch a relative newcomer continue an argument that has been had many times before. Neither you nor your associates have brought anything new to the argument this time around that hasn't been done to death previously through numerous threads.

Ever thought that Hyp's post count is high because of other reasons other than the patronising reason you postulate (which, I might add, also mirrors your current, and my, behaviour)? I guess not if that is not favourable to your position.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It is very entertaining to watch a relative newcomer continue an argument that has been had many times before.

I suppose it might be entertaining to watch, but the behavior has immense utility. It is, after all, difficult for paticipants in the status quo to be able (or willing) to muster the arguments necessary to overturn it, should it be incorrect. (And, of course, perhaps the best way to know if it needs overturning is to continually test it.)

For what it's worth, I am far from a newcomer -- though as I'm a firm believer in the "high post count suggests low post quality" point of view, my post count isn't immense -- and I completely agree with Fifth Element regarding Hypersmurf's techniques and practices. (I also got a little chuckle out of his use of the word "disciples." Wish I were that diplomatic.)

 

[Legildur]

An interesting observation. I often find Hyp's analysis exceedingly pedantic, but once I follow the argument, it is very difficult to refute. I've certainly tried a couple of times. At first glance, I'd have said Sunder could substitute for a melee attack. I no longer think that way after several threads on the subject. Certainly I shan't be swayed unless errata is issued.

As to 'testing the hypothesis', I have no problem with IF you introduce new material. That hasn't happened in this thread to date. Therefore it is only rehashing old ground, so I dispute that it has utility.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find Hyp's analysis exceedingly pedantic, but once I follow the argument, it is very difficult to refute.

Indeed, I cannot refute Hyp's argument. That is to say, I cannot argue that it is not a reasonable interpretation of the rules. I have never suggested it isn't.

What I am suggesting is that there is another reasonable interpretation of the same rules, one that agrees with the FAQ's suggestion, that does not produce a contradiction in the rules.

I'd even go so far as to say Hyp's interpretation is the more obvious one, and perhaps even the more likely, given how the rules were written.

All I'm saying is that there is another interpretation of the rules possible, without contradicting either written text or published table. I'm not really arguing about the rules in one sense, I'm arguing against the assertion that Skip Williams is a moron and the FAQ makes absolutely no sense in this ruling.

I'm not even saying I'd necessarily use my interpretation of the rules in my own games (I don't think anyone's ever tried to sunder on an AoO or full attack, so it hasn't come up). All I'm saying is that there is another interpretation possible. The consistent denial that such a possibility even exists is baffling. I'm not arguing that my interpretation is right or that the other is wrong, or even which is more likely to be right or wrong, just that another interpretation exists.

 

[Legildur]

...I'm arguing against the assertion that Skip Williams is a moron and the FAQ makes absolutely no sense in this ruling.

Well, perhaps moron is overly strong. But if you (and I mean Skip here) is going to write from a position of authority, he could at least check the facts first. The stated reasoning behind his FAQ response on Sunder was so poor that it completely undermined any possible validity of the answer.

Generally speaking I like the FAQ, but it is far from fault free and a robust source of clarification.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Table 8-2 disagrees with the FAQ. The FAQ is not RAW, and does not supercede the table found in the primary source.

I'd just like to point out that, yet again, you've completely failed to respond to my argument. Thank you for confirming that you have nothing worthwhile to say.

If you'd bothered to read the earlier (extensive) threads on this subject (and many others), you'd realise that Hyp has a very high level of respect in this community for his 'rules fu'. There is a good reason that his post count is quite high. Sure, his arguments can be excrutiatingly precise, but his understanding of the rules is not in question.

.... except, of course, his understanding of the rules is in question. You'll notice that we have an entire 4 page thread here questioning his understanding of the rules.

Also: "Because Hypersmurf says so" doesn't actually constitute an argument. It is, in fact, a blatant fallacy.

The text for Sunder is ambiguous.

So you and Hypersmurf claim, and yet neither one of you seems capable of even responding to my argument.

Hypersmurf has already confirmed that he has nothing worthwhile to say. Let's give you the same opportunity. Do you, in fact, have a response to my argument? Or are you just going to continue pretending that saying "Hypersmurf is really smart" constitutes a meaningful argument?

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, perhaps moron is overly strong.

Indeed. No one actually accused him of that, as far as I can see. But he was accused of doing a crappy job, more or less, and that his answer makes no sense. Based on what was quoted as being his shoddy reasoning, my interpretation fits his answer quite well.

But is there anything in my last post that you care to refute? Or do you agree that there is another possible interpretation of the rules, regardless of which interpretation you might prefer or even consider to be the "right" one?

 

[Fifth Element]

Generally speaking I like the FAQ, but it is far from fault free and a robust source of clarification.

Agreed. But again, remember that I am not trying to prove my interpretation is "right", merely that it is another interpretation that fits the rules as written. I'm not even trying to "clarify: anything at this point. The assertion that no such other interpretation exists is what I'm arguing against.

I might even prefer Hyp's interpretation, I could assert that it fits the rules better, but this does nothing to detract from the fact that there is another interpretation that fits the rules as written.

 

[Jhaelen]

though as I'm a firm believer in the "high post count suggests low post quality" point of view, my post count isn't immense

I beg to differ!
1. your post count seems quite immense to me.
2. I guess, this post gives a good indication of the typical quality of your posts.

Wish I were that diplomatic.

Boy, how I'd wish that, too

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I beg to differ!

Oh, stop. As long as you're okay with being wrong -- and you very clearly are! -- there's certainly no need to beg!

1. your post count seems quite immense to me.

I'm sure it does. Let's compare:

Your 600 posts, divided by your 13 months of membership: Just over 46 posts per month.

My 1470 posts, divided by 65 months of membership: Just under 23 posts per month.

Thanks so much for further corroboration of the HPCSLPQ theory. Your contribution won't be forgotten.

2. I guess, this post gives a good indication of the typical quality of your posts.
Boy, how I'd wish that, too

This from the guy who just can't believe that anyone on the Internet -- the hallowed Internet, for God's sake! -- would toss out an insult and follow it up with a smiley. Seriously, Jhaelen, look up "irony." It's spelled with an "I." You can find it in a book called a "dik-shun-air-ee." (I spelled it out phonetically for you, so you can ask your teacher.)