10 minutes ago, Parravon said:

You want examples? Well, there's plenty in this thread for a start. As well as the Setup Question thread. A few months back, there was the fruitless attempt to explain to you how nested actions work and have always worked which you just wouldn't accept regardless of the number of members that tried to explain it.

But you continually stick to your weird and invariably incorrect logic, which has been proven wrong on numerous occasions, and will not accept that it might possibly be you that's wrong.

Actually, I didn't ask for examples, I stated for your statement to be valid, you would have to provide a referenced and vetted account of every statement I have made and it's (according to your claim) corresponding contradictory valid statement.

But, since you did bring up a selection, what about the discussion of the Alpha Class Starwing with Arsenal title and the implications of Blinded Pilot....we just agreed on it, so unless you are claiming that you are wrong as well, then that already invalidates your accusation.

4 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

Actually, I didn't ask for examples, I stated for your statement to be valid, you would have to provide a referenced and vetted account of every statement I have made and it's (according to your claim) corresponding contradictory valid statement.

But, since you did bring up a selection, what about the discussion of the Alpha Class Starwing with Arsenal title and the implications of Blinded Pilot....we just agreed on it, so unless you are claiming that you are wrong as well, then that already invalidates your accusation.

Actually, you were wrong in the " Os-1 Arsenal loadout and blinded pilot " as well. You agreed with option c).

Quote

c) The Alpha with a weapons disabled token can flip the blinded pilot card down only if it has a legal way to fire its ordnance and a valid target (i.e. both target lock and a ship in arc).

It doesn't need a legal way to fire its ordnance or a valid target. It just needs torpedoes or missile in order to give it an opportunity to attack. Read the Damage card.

5 hours ago, Smitty said:

Funny part in his assertion of he can't be wrong is the origin of the phrase: A person selected to act as a sort of prosecutor against the cause of canonization of a saint. The job literally demands the likely possibility of being wrong or there would be no saints.

SkullNBones: Think Riker forced to argue in court that Data isn't sentient. If you're familiar with tng.

Devil's advocates can be correct but overruled. And indeed presumably often were.

Just like they often are in this forum section. Just not in this case.

If they're demonstrably incorrect and having had that demonstrated they keep arguing, they're not fulfilling that function any more.

1 minute ago, Parravon said:

Actually, you were wrong in the " Os-1 Arsenal loadout and blinded pilot " as well. You agreed with option c).

It doesn't need a legal way to fire its ordnance or a valid target. It just needs torpedoes or missile in order to give it an opportunity to attack. Read the Damage card.

Read the entire post on the OS-1 Arsenal load out, as I finished, agreeing with option B of the OP. And to clarify as I did there, to have the opportunity to attack (since the ACSW in the example has a weapons disabled token) it needs to have a Target Lock on a ship (in arc or not). Otherwise it would fall under the rule (that I quoted in the post) for ships with a weapons disabled token stated in the FAQ.

8 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Devil's advocates can be correct but overruled. And indeed presumably often were.

Just like they often are in this forum section. Just not in this case.

If they're demonstrably incorrect and having had that demonstrated they keep arguing, they're not fulfilling that function any more.

My point is that there was no discussion of the hypothetical, only a dismissal. I wasn't trying to compare the two states so much as explore the possibility for redefinition. But again, moot at this point.

Again the "devil's advocate" stance was more for simile than analogy and the position is semantic.

3 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Until then, it simply an attempt to illicit an antagonistic response with the intention to cause defamation to my character within this social media. And given that this media is technically a "print" media, it could prove cause for a case of liable (granted I would have to prove that the defamation caused personal injury (in some form), but the case can still be made regardless if it carried through or not.

Ok a bit of a reach there man.

1, you are anonymously posting, its automatically not libel in that ground no matter what he said.

2, insults are not libel. I can say you are wrong then follow it up with you are an idiot or accuse you of ignoring facts and blah blah other rude stuff calling into question you intellect or even your mental stability if i like... not libel, just rude (examples only, I'm not trying say those things and be rude)

3, in order to be libel he has to say something that can be absolutely prove false. You are the one burdened to prove it false. Also you are the one burdened to prove that he knew that it was false and deliberately said it in order to cause injury to your reputation. Accusing you of being a sex offender is libel, insulting your intelligence or telling you that you're wrong is not.

There's one person here ruining Skullnbones' reputation, and it is demonstrably self inflicted.

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

I wasn't trying to compare the two states so much as explore the possibility for redefinition. But again, moot at this point.

Rules forum are not a place to discusse redefinition because they create coffusion. And if you want redefinition, then you can't use another card as an example to base your argument... A redefinition have no previous example...

You want to have Accurecy Corrector use a changing state, saying that HLC already do that. But HLC do not use a changing state, it do not change state... If you want the game to implement the concept of dice ownership and state change, do so, but don't come saying card are already doing it... they do not. HLC continue to look at all the dice after Rolling them... it just so happen that there is never other Roll in this game after the initial attack one, this have nothing to do with "a theoretical loss of ownership" you try to define. This will be now over 10 posts where people tell you that you base point is wrong, your concept does not exist...