|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 7:06AM
#41
|
|
|
So you're your own authority on certifying yourself as an authority?
No, the fact that I'm right way more often than not, and when I'm not right I change my opinion based on evidence, does that.
It's okay that you're wrong dude, you can be wrong. If you want to just ignore how things are written and then decide how they work because of your certificate of accomplishment on the internet that's your way to play.
Nice try, but turning that around on me would work better if you weren't *wrong in every way* about what constitutes an attack, about the triggering and timing of the Knight's punishment, and if your suggested tactics didn't directly contradict how the monster's power works.
I'm right though. Not about the opportunity thing.
Not about *any* of it.
And since by your own admission customer service can't be trusted there cannot actually be a correct interpretation of this,
There's a HUGE excluded middle hiding in between "either customer service is perfect OR no rules can ever be known". There are a great many rules sources other than customer service - for example, the books. Which explain what an attack is, and why you're wrong when you say that Eye Rays are not an attack and that no-action attacks are not attacks.
It could be popularly accepted though, and yet could still be wrong. Like when people misquote the line at "Play it again, Sam."
Or when people expect a Fighter's mark punishment to stop a Shift, due to Combat Superiority.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 7:09AM
#42
|
|
|
ROFL, please, don't tell me you're actually arguing against someone who is one of the most trusted posters in Rules Q&A, and in addition writer of a guide that got stickied in this forum? So yes, he IS an authority by himself and what he has done over the last years in this forums. You have what to counter that?
I'm perfectly happy to have anyone, regardless of their history, argue with me. I will listen to anyone who can make an argument work, and if they're right and I'm wrong, I'll change my position.
It's just safe to assume that anyone showing up out of nowhere with a Novel Theory Of Why All Previous Rules Calls Are Wrong has missed a few decimal points or skimped on their dried frog pills somewhere along the way.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 7:11AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2010
|
So you're your own authority on certifying yourself as an authority? I guess I'm glad that my physician didn't graduate from the university of himself.
It's okay that you're wrong dude, you can be wrong. If you want to just ignore how things are written and then decide how they work because of your certificate of accomplishment on the internet that's your way to play.
I'm right though. Not about the opportunity thing. And since by your own admission customer service can't be trusted there cannot actually be a correct interpretation of this, that at best it is subjective on every level. It could be popularly accepted though, and yet could still be wrong. Like when people misquote the line at "Play it again, Sam."
Not sure if serious.... 
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 12:20PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
ROFL, please, don't tell me you're actually arguing against someone who is one of the most trusted posters in Rules Q&A, and in addition writer of a guide that got stickied in this forum? So yes, he IS an authority by himself and what he has done over the last years in this forums. You have what to counter that?
I'm perfectly happy to have anyone, regardless of their history, argue with me. I will listen to anyone who can make an argument work, and if they're right and I'm wrong, I'll change my position.
It's just safe to assume that anyone showing up out of nowhere with a Novel Theory Of Why All Previous Rules Calls Are Wrong has missed a few decimal points or skimped on their dried frog pills somewhere along the way.
Except that you're still wrong.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 12:26PM
#45
|
|
|
I can't be the only one eagerly anticipating the moment when Alcestis wanders in here. 
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 12:34PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I can't be the only one eagerly anticipating the moment when Alcestis wanders in here.
I'll get the bomb shelter.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 1:19PM
#47
|
|
|
I can't be the only one eagerly anticipating the moment when Alcestis wanders in here.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 1:43PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Eye Rays doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Battle Guardian is not an Opportunity Attack, its a different Attack Power also made as an Opportunity Action, and thus can be triggerred whevener (once per turn) the Beholder will attack an ally with a Eye Ray while within the Knight's Defender Aura.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 6:41PM
#49
|
|
|
Except that you're still wrong.
Please explain where it says that Eye Rays is not an attack, and that Battle Guardian doesn't trigger on non-action attacks?
Because RC 90 says Eye Rays is an attack, and HotFL 129 specifies the trigger of Battle Guardian as "makes an attack" without any kind of requirement that the attack have an action type. (Oh, and "Random Eye Ray" says to use an Eye Ray.)
Which means that all your arguments, start to finish, are directly contradicted by the rulebook and the monster statblock. Which is another way of saying "you're wrong, and also wrong when you say I'm wrong. And you can't support your position, because no support for your position exists, because your position is not correct."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 10:27PM
#50
|
|
|
I can't be the only one eagerly anticipating the moment when Alcestis wanders in here.
Have I really been gone so long that That Guy is the dude y'all anticipate as my replacement?
(And now, there are two reasons to point him here.)
|
|
|
