Community

Sep 8, 2012 -- 10:10PM, Alcestis wrote:

Also in this context "targeting" is stiputalely defined as an event by the trigger rules. That fact that it isn't an action or an effect means it must be an event, or it wouldn't be a valid trigger for powers (and it is). So regardless of whether the dictionary definition applied (though it clearly does) the rules are pretty clear it is an event.

I wouldn't say 4e's rules aren't really readable or accurate. Playing the system is fun, learning it is not, and even when you learn it there are large areas that require dedication to figure out.

There is no such thing as proof by exclusion of all other possibilities in 4e.  You cannot say "Because it is not X or Y, then it is Z."  It is only Z if it says it is Z.  It's Muchkinesque.  Not quite Munchkin, but close.

That you assume that targeting is the event that the trigger is creating to determine whether the trigger is referencing an event just makes your argument circular, in addition to not adhering properly to exception-based design.

That you're willing to invoke SvG as to the powers that your argument renders nonfunctional, but don't even allow for the possibility that a specifically-designed trigger might conflict with the general trigger rules - to the point where you grant the definition the title of 'stipulative' - is thoroughly inconsistent.

I don't know about you, but I don't tend to accept arguments that aren't self-consistent or circular.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Alcestis wrote:

Now, that isn't circular and is provably logical within just a few lines. The only alternative is Warrl's post, which is that the powers simply don't function. Which is about right for the level of nonsense you have to resort to to make any other conclusion work.

The rules for powers also make Opportunity Attack not function either, but I don't see you saying that the argument is wrong because of that.

And you're not understanding what I mean when I say that it is circular.  You are taking the following trigger line:

Trigger:  You are targeted by an attack


And claiming that "targeting" is the event.  Why do you ignore the other half of the trigger, where it says...by an attack?  How do you then ignore the rules that tell you how to resolve reactions that are triggered by attacks?

You're ignoring text in order to make your assumption valid, that the "targeting" part is the event and not the "attack" part.  And then claiming that because you decided that "targeting" was the trigger, that "targeting" is the event.  It's patently circular.  You're deciding the answer arbitrarily.