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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bestone" data-source="post: 3363090" data-attributes="member: 48880">Im in concurrance with you on most points there legildur.I dont buy that because the language is so so slightly different (but still having the same meaning) that you could draw irrefutable proof that it means it was to be used differently. I see two standpoints on this, those that believe the text is right as written (and blah blah blah as we've said)and those that believe that the table insinuates that the text is really different. (however note, i know your argument comprises a lot more than this, im just stating in short note, you can replace this line with whatever the belief of your argument may be)I think this has become nearly moot to argue. We've scoured and disected a lot of rules and to me, its still a stalemate. I believe either side can make good caseson thier pov.And obviously i come to the conclusion that im right. And hyp is wrong.I might be inclined to agree a little more with the other opinion, but there is so so so many places that can be cited, including game designers and a faq. But lets not get into how these are valid, im not saying they are vaild or %100 accurate. But they have read the text they designed too, and interpreted it the way that i interpret it.That doesnt by any rule make me undisputedly correct. But it at least makes me feel more comfterable in the corectness of my interpretation.Edit - and like i said, i think it may be lazy cause it wasnt intended to be so different, its written to me, as a rule for a melee attack that strikes an attended object instead of a person, and not a completely different game mechanic. But dont quote me on this, or have me quote a rule on this, this is just my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification