|
Post by Manah on Dec 8, 2014 0:26:44 GMT -5
In that case, please, please don't do it in OOC. XD I will go nuts way before I ever get to him, and if I do, I'll probably go berserk. In real life.
|
|
|
Post by Silentking Alpha on Dec 8, 2014 0:30:43 GMT -5
Okay, okay. Also, are you gonna post in the Samus and Demetri thread?
Just want to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 8, 2014 0:35:33 GMT -5
I will be, yes. Not right now, though, I'm working on a couple of things at once.
And thanks, very much. XD
|
|
|
Post by Silentking Alpha on Dec 8, 2014 0:42:02 GMT -5
Thanks, was just worried that you forgot they exist.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 8, 2014 0:44:23 GMT -5
Forget about Samus? ...Never. Too awesome. And Demitri is too much of a perverted yet cool and collected vampire to forget playing as him. XD
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Dec 8, 2014 16:33:58 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Mastery of Magic is still an Action, so I'd rule you still need to use up one of your Actions to gain the additional energy regeneration.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 8, 2014 17:33:45 GMT -5
That would be a house rule, because nowhere does it say you have to do so for it to work. Also, I don't see how that would make any sense. This is not Dragon Ball, where you can actually stop to build up power (by screaming, apparently, lol). It simply means that you draw on magical energy to recover faster. To spend an action, you have to use an action to do something. Not to benefit from an advantage clearly meant to be passive, as it adds to a passive effect (the regeneration of Energy).
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Dec 8, 2014 22:02:24 GMT -5
How is it clearly meant to be passive? It's, what, a +1 Option on a base CL Action. It's wholly inconsistent with the rules to read it any other way.
|
|
|
Post by GPMC on Dec 8, 2014 22:07:45 GMT -5
Does suggest that it is not always the case, otherwise it should have been "do", so making that take an active action does make sense. That or you'd have to case some spell with a duration for which you 'd have to pay seperately. Kind of goes against the "up to AN" but there are means to get more stones into that via ability bonus or sorcery (or similar) action.
unless
Would be an counter argument to that, got no idea what that restriction #1 is in this case.
If id'd be a limited duration via spell thing though that wouldn't make much sense. Seems needlessly complicated. Sure kind of fits the "I case a 2nd wind spell" idea, but other then sloth there 'd be no reason NOT to refresh whenever it'd run out making it practicly go 24 7 with only minimum inconvinience every few whatever time interval one'd end up with.
Taking an action (like with absorb energy or energy drain) therefore 'd seem the more reasonable option.
One could also argue with balancing reasons, but murpg ain't realy "balancy" to begin with. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Dec 8, 2014 22:16:11 GMT -5
I honestly don't even think the game is all that terribly balanced, it's just ill-suited to PbP. For MoM, the book clearly states that, to use an Action, you need to use one of your two. It would be House Ruling to pick and choose Actions that don't apply. Unless an Action says otherwise, it acts as one of your two.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 8, 2014 22:35:16 GMT -5
Disagreed again. The "can" part could very well mean that you don't have to regenerate more in a panel if you don't want to, for example if you're trying to hide your magical aura from someone with Enhanced senses (See auras and magical forces). I also insist that since it adds to an effect that is passive, the Energy Regen per panel, it absolutely doesn't require an action to benefit from. I am not House ruling anything by saying it doesn't apply to this specific Option (not the whole action, because that would be). Phoenix Force grants you 2x AN regen stones per panel and again, it doesn't say you have to use the action to benefit from it, it just says 'You get it', period. Acrobatics gives you free passive defense from falls all the time, not just when using it. Again. Energy absorption/Reflection protects you all the time, not just when using it. You use it when you attack with the accumulated stones, not when absorbing. Passive effect from action. Telepathy gives you free Mental Defense all the time, not just when using it. Passive. Same goes with this. Some effect and some options of some actions are clearly passive effects that work whenever. You guys are the ones house ruling things because you disagree with it, not me. Read again, and you will see it is FAR more common than just in my imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Dec 8, 2014 22:58:35 GMT -5
So let's look at these in relevant parts. Firstly, as GPMC, the word "can" means "to be able to do". If it wasn't elective, it wouldn't say "can", it was say "shall", "must", or omit the transitive verb entirely. Its mere presence has to mean something. The Restriction doesn't really apply here. It's not a Durational effect of the Action, so you can't put stones into it to give it a longer Duration. It's simply something that "is" as part of using Mastery of Magic. Also note that, because this is the only Restriction listed as being lifted, Restrictions 3 (No effect greater than 6 stones) and 4 ("You must spend 1 Panel in preparation for any effect") still apply. The rules explain that you can do no more than 2 Actions in a Panel. By listing an Exception (the Powered Armor rule), it's assumed that this list is exhaustive. It doesn't say "Example Exception", but "Exception". Therefore, there is only one unless, in future books, something changes. However, that doesn't apply here because Mastery of Magic was created in the Core Rulebook, so it would have to have been considered if it were to have been an Exception. Finally, we have Phoenix Force. It explicitly states that you recover 2x Action Number/panel. Furthermore, it is a prohibitively expensive Action to account for this and all of the other perks inherent with a Phoenix Force. For one more bit of evidence, let's look at one more Action that doesn't require active use: Steal Superpower Though this could rebut my point about the way the Action rule Exception being exhaustive, the Steal Superpower Action very clearly states that it will always trigger through direct contact. Nothing in Mastery of Magic is that clear. Now, Manah, I have to ask what you mean by ". . . and you will see it is FAR more common than just in my imagination." What's far more common? Actions not taking up Actions or this interpretation of the Rule? If the former, then I'd have to disagree. Any such instance is very explicitly named. If it's the latter, then your sample source is way messed up. This Board has been its own little eco-system for the past 10+ years (shiiiiit we're old). We're way off the RAW and it's pretty safe to assume that most rules used here are based on House Rules or RAI from years past assumed to be the RAW. As one, isolated community playing the game against the way it was built (PbP, with players deciding and revealing their Actions in no specific order), we don't really reflect the Rules as Written at all.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 8, 2014 23:28:23 GMT -5
True, and my understanding is just as possible as yours. Repeating this over and over doesn't make you right, it just means what it says, which is it means something. What that something is, I already explained above. I never even mentioned this restriction thing, it's you guys. It doesn't have anything to do with this, because you are not using the action, just the passive bonus, therefore the restriction has nothing to do with it. I repeat that it never says you actually have to use an action to benefit from the regen, no need to bring back the 'can' part again, I'll just repeat myself again too. You are really scratching the barrel's bottom for counter-arguments here. That entire argument fully rests on the idea that 'the free Energy Regen requires an action to be used', which is the very thing problem being discussed here. You are basically saying 'I'm right because I'm right'. Sorry, but that's entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand. It would be an actual argument if the problem was "Can I use Mastery of Magic without using up an action?" and if we agreed that the free Energy Regen did use up an action, but hey, we don't, and the problem is "Is the free Energy Regen of M.o.M alone using up an action when the action isn't used for anything else?". ...Pass. In Mastery of Magic? ...Maybe not that clear. In "Energy regeneration per panel"? Crystal clear. It is passive and always active. What IS clear in Mastery of Magic, is that it adds to Energy Regen per panel, a passive effect. The fact it also doesn't say in Mastery of Magic's Accumulate Energy "...only when using the action" to something that is added directly to a passive effect, signifies just as clearly, like Steal Superpower, that is doesn't require an action to get that regen. Not to use the action... but to get the regen, definitely. Neither. Read again: What is FAR more common is specific effects of actions, as opposed to the full action themselves, being passive and always active as opposed to active only when used. You want precedents? I said some above. Did you forget to read them? Acrobatics' free falling defense, for example... it's actually included in a +0 action. So what? My interpretation is bad since you disagree with it? Your RAI might be just as wrong. All you've been doing so far is coming up with arguments supporting your theory. I have done the same, but also explained why I saw yours as incorrect. You haven't. Not that this makes me right, but I find it odd that you haven't challenged one of my claims rather than simply give your own thoughts and say that they are right because of the way they are written (which is exactly what I've been saying myself, so as far as I'm concerned, neither beats the other). What I do believe makes me right is what I explained here, although I suspect you won't agree with that either. .................. I'll be honest, at this point it's obvious this argument will lead us nowhere. We will never see eye-to-eye on this point. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. One school of thinking believes even things that simply add to passive things but come from action takes up actions, while mine says that to use an action, you have to... use an action. As long as our respective players are fine with either, then everybody's happy, right?
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Dec 8, 2014 23:35:29 GMT -5
Hey, I'm okay with you conceding when your position is blatantly illogical and when you're here acting like I'm making some absurd leaps by defining the word "can". I can rest assured that, though I may be right, I haven't been proven wrong in the least. You've literally brought zero arguments to the table and have cited no precedent to defend your point.
That said, I do agree. The reason I never play games here anymore (with the exception of the one I'm in now) is because the community has twinked out the rules into abusable levels. I cannot understand anybody being in a game that allows such misinterpretation of the rules, but I guess whatever keeps your boat floating will keep it floating. The game is dead and you're free to play it incorrectly if you'd like, but don't expect me to agree with such egregious readings of the rules under a light that you're altering the definitions of very basic words and changing the very core mechanics of the game.
EDIT: And for the record, I only disagree because you haven't shown me any evidence that this is the way the rule should be explained nor have you raised any examples from the book with parallel language to demonstrate that this Option is meant to be active at all times.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 8, 2014 23:55:03 GMT -5
Wow. Conceding (as opposed to 'we don't agree and won't so let's just stop wasting our time'), blatantly illogical (when I explained thoroughly why it actually made sense over and over again), and "acting like" you're being absurd by focusing your argument on a word three times in a row when I first explained what else it could mean. No arguments when I put like a dozen, no precedents when I put like 6, my understanding is 'misinterpretation' outright, I'm free to play incorrectly, I read egregiously, alter the definitions, etc.
You're right. Happy? Is that what I should have to say if I wanted to have any worth in your eyes? Heck, I probably should be thrown out this planet, I'm obviously a dumb, illogical idiot and an horrible human being who willingly alter facts for my own twisted enjoyment of playing a broken game, as opposed to simply disagreeing with you. To think that such horrible beings such as myself exist must truly make you sick. I humbly apologize.
Fine, be that way. I was willing to drop this and part on friendly terms considering (as neutral parties can probably see) how neither of us is truly right or wrong as opposed to 'just seeing things differently', but if you're going to indirectly insult me (a favor I didn't return, by the way) by ignoring all the explanations and precedents I did point out, putting me in the 'blatantly illogical/misinterpretation/incorrect/egregious readings/altering definitions' category and basically go around saying how 'you're right, you've won' since I 'conceded' (funny you'd say that, you who seem so eager to seek definitions to prove a point), then I believe we have nothing more to say to one another.
Have a nice life. I'll just return to my, illogical, horribly bad and altered games. Love you too.
|
|