|
Post by vulcan on Mar 29, 2019 21:32:35 GMT
I Think it creates such vitriol because to most (I think the majority would lie here anyway) people it seems pretty clear cut. It seems to be mainly LM players who claim otherwise, and that can seem like someone just trying to gain an advantage. This is not meant as a personal dig Ah, no, I'm a lizardman player (more accurately, in the process of becoming one) and as I said I think the rule is perfectly clear: supporting attacks do not generate PF attacks. I imagine I'm not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 29, 2019 21:53:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Mar 29, 2019 22:06:32 GMT
I no longer call that a game; that's a mental illness.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 29, 2019 22:22:18 GMT
I no longer call that a game; that's a mental illness. I thought it to be appropriate for the PF discussion.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Mar 29, 2019 23:58:53 GMT
BRB Vs AB, maybe not clear cut as you mention but it was probably as intended, and I agree badly written so as to generate so much discussion. I still don't think it's a lot to worry about in the overall scheme of things if I'm honest.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 30, 2019 20:47:03 GMT
You are putting the cart before the horse. Basic rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise. As such, the PF rule is perfectly clear. It is only badly written, if one assumes that PF is intended to apply to supporting attacks - an assumption for which there is no factual basis.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 30, 2019 21:11:59 GMT
The fact that the rule still spawns debate and argumentation more than five and a half years after its original release (even after the subsequent discontinuation of the game it was released for) is probably a pretty strong indicator that it isn't a perfectly clear rule.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Mar 30, 2019 22:06:47 GMT
The fact that the rule still spawns debate and argumentation more than five and a half years after its original release (even after the subsequent discontinuation of the game it was released for) is probably a pretty strong indicator that it isn't a perfectly clear rule. There is one, and only one, exception to the rule on supporting attacks. Monstrous support. And it says it is an exception right there in the rule for Monstrous Support. PF lacks that clause. Therefore the rule is clear, despite your opinion and your efforts to confuse it. But hey, anyone you can con into playing it your way, be my guest. It doesn't make the rule any less clear.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 31, 2019 0:07:56 GMT
The fact that the rule still spawns debate and argumentation more than five and a half years after its original release (even after the subsequent discontinuation of the game it was released for) is probably a pretty strong indicator that it isn't a perfectly clear rule. There is one, and only one, exception to the rule on supporting attacks. Monstrous support. And it says it is an exception right there in the rule for Monstrous Support. PF lacks that clause. Therefore the rule is clear, despite your opinion and your efforts to confuse it. But hey, anyone you can con into playing it your way, be my guest. It doesn't make the rule any less clear. Go to a new forum and start up a thread about it... you will get a debate. Go to a new gaming group of a sufficient size and bring up the subject... you will get a debate. It is far from being clear! If it was clear, we wouldn't be having this same discussion over and over and over again. In regards to your attempt to antagonize me with your accusations of "my efforts to confuse it" and "anyone you con into playing it your way", I feel that you are doing the exact same thing. I'm not asking you to see it my way, I'm just trying to make you understand that not everyone sees it your way. In all honesty we don't even know how the majority of people in the world play the rule. Understand, that just as you view my interpretation to be nonsensical, I view your argument to be just as baseless. I'm just not naive enough to think that one singular view is held universally and that the rule is crystal clear.
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Mar 31, 2019 9:28:42 GMT
*snacks on popcorn*
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 31, 2019 12:40:01 GMT
vulcan: What nightbringer lacks in argument, he makes more than up for in stamina. His is a war of attrition: he'll keep on posting,even if his position has been thoroughly refuted in X different ways, until the last of his opponents gives up, and he himself has thus secured the last word. It is simply not worth the bother.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 31, 2019 14:44:01 GMT
vulcan : What nightbringer lacks in argument, he makes more than up for in stamina. His is a war of attrition: he'll keep on posting,even if his position has been thoroughly refuted in X different ways, until the last of his opponents gives up, and he himself has thus secured the last word. It is simply not worth the bother. And then you cry when you're insulted, but you don't seem to realize that your rudeness is the cause of it. No matter. I (along with kroak ) had listed plenty of points that weren't refuted. You challenged them, but not sufficiently. You raised many points of your own, which we in turn had challenged (but not sufficiently in your eyes). The difference between us is that I can at least recognize your argumentation and accept that we have an irreconcilable disagreement, while you view your line of reasoning as godlike and unassailable. You are only able to observe the situation through your own narrow point of view; you can't accept that others see it differently. I pity your gaming partners (if you have any). As for the war of attrition, it had simply become obvious that the same arguments were being recycled over and over again. With all your "higher level" reasoning and self belief, I'm surprised you couldn't see it. Nothing new was being said, but you demonstrated such arrogance and condescension that I simply decided I was not going to let you have the last word. Sometimes it is best to leave it as "agree to disagree" but your attitude makes that an impossibility. So it became a little game and I like games.
|
|
kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Apr 1, 2019 18:45:29 GMT
For the record: I agree with nightbringer, that the rule is at least unclear. There are many reasons to believe that PF works with supporting attacks, as I explained in the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Apr 1, 2019 22:18:52 GMT
Well, whether you want to use it or not that's fine with me, we comp or house rule it that it does give an extra attack mainly because statistically you're not looking at many extra attacks. maybe if it were on a say wounding hits maybe people would say differently but I believe it was an oversight and intended for the supporting attack to actually benefit from the rule.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Apr 1, 2019 23:11:46 GMT
Fair point, guys. Thanks for reminding me of the #1 rule of civilized discourse on the internet: Don't feed the trolls.
|
|