Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6792701" data-attributes="member: 61529">It may not be, but the point is, you don't have to be able to identify the flaw in an argument to know that it's wrong.No, this was a "proof" that, on the Euclidian plane, all angles are equal to the right angle. And that was wrong. And it was wrong even before I could find a flaw in it.No, time must pass for it to make sense that he can target the beam after seeing the results of the previous beam."Make sense" is not a boolean. There's a lot of things in the rules that don't make sense; my favorite proof (which I came up with during a timing argument on Usenet) was the commoner railgun, which allows you to move objects significantly faster than the speed of light. The rules don't always make sense. They approximate making sense, but if you look too closely at boundary cases, you will find stuff that's nonsensical. And that just sorta happens sometimes.I don't know. And I note, I'm not saying that such a ruling exists. I'm saying that it's not an unthinkable ruling, because it would make some sense to say "you can't interrupt instantaneous spells", and still say "but you get to choose targets sequentially after seeing results because that's the balanced answer for things that require multiple attack rolls."</blockquote>