Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Magus Coeruleus" data-source="post: 3204713" data-attributes="member: 1704">No need to be snippy with the accusation of &quot;selectively [ignoring] how the rules are actually written.&quot;&nbsp; First, you're right, it's a spread, not a burst.&nbsp; Doesn't change anything here, in fact a spread turns corners but is otherwise like a burst, so my point is better made with reference to the correct type.&nbsp; My bad, thanks for pointing it out.&nbsp; Next, we can argue (and we are) about &quot;instantaneous&quot; but no one (not your nor I) is bending or twisting rules, but just trying to interpret then.&nbsp; If something is truly instantaneous, it makes no sense at all for it to be a burst or spread because it is meaningless for an effect to radiate out form a point of origin if it applies everywhere in the area simultaneously.&nbsp; So if my interpretation conflicts with true meaning of &quot;instantaneous&quot; then yours violates the true meaning of a &quot;spread.&quot;&nbsp; No one here can claim to be flat out correct on this point.&nbsp; Third, I think you are reading too literally and picking at nits when you point out that a flaming sword is said to &quot;slash&quot; rather than &quot;burn&quot; away a Web.&nbsp; Clearly, the fire is the responsible agent since a non-flaming sword is probably not up to the task otherwise it would be pointless to specify &quot;flaming.&quot;&nbsp; And, I would argue, &quot;as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs&quot; does, in fact imply something about the ease or speed with which fire burns away a Web.&nbsp; Does it make it clear?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; But this is about interpretation, not adherence to or violation of some clear rule as you make it out to be.So thanks for validating my entitlement to an opinion, but I took that for granted.&nbsp; I also take for granted that when the rules are not clear on certain points, we are all welcome to agree and disagree on interpretation and that no one is justified in accusing others of willful ignorance or distortion when the rules are simply silent or ambiguous on certain points.&nbsp; I would appreciate the courtesy of more polite discourse along those lines.&nbsp; Thanks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Magus Coeruleus, post: 3204713, member: 1704"] No need to be snippy with the accusation of "selectively [ignoring] how the rules are actually written." First, you're right, it's a spread, not a burst. Doesn't change anything here, in fact a spread turns corners but is otherwise like a burst, so my point is better made with reference to the correct type. My bad, thanks for pointing it out. Next, we can argue (and we are) about "instantaneous" but no one (not your nor I) is bending or twisting rules, but just trying to interpret then. If something is truly instantaneous, it makes no sense at all for it to be a burst or spread because it is meaningless for an effect to radiate out form a point of origin if it applies everywhere in the area simultaneously. So if my interpretation conflicts with true meaning of "instantaneous" then yours violates the true meaning of a "spread." No one here can claim to be flat out correct on this point. Third, I think you are reading too literally and picking at nits when you point out that a flaming sword is said to "slash" rather than "burn" away a Web. Clearly, the fire is the responsible agent since a non-flaming sword is probably not up to the task otherwise it would be pointless to specify "flaming." And, I would argue, "as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs" does, in fact imply something about the ease or speed with which fire burns away a Web. Does it make it clear? No. But this is about interpretation, not adherence to or violation of some clear rule as you make it out to be. So thanks for validating my entitlement to an opinion, but I took that for granted. I also take for granted that when the rules are not clear on certain points, we are all welcome to agree and disagree on interpretation and that no one is justified in accusing others of willful ignorance or distortion when the rules are simply silent or ambiguous on certain points. I would appreciate the courtesy of more polite discourse along those lines. Thanks. [/QUOTE]

Verification