Karadan wrote:Sorry, I misphrased that one statement Kreistor.
Of course, you did; however, what you wrote clearly meant something other than your intent. You should be very careful when selfishly interpreting others' statements the way you have been, because you open the door for them to treat you the same way. If you are not willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, then you will not receive it.
I meant I had not gone back to RE-read that klog, because you presented no indication that I might to, until you accused me of not reading 'the klog that you posted', despite not having posted one.
For that Klog, I shouldn't have needed to. The Obedience, Duty, Loyalty Klog is one of the most important and most frequently debated. That one you NEED to know. And you need to recognize that most people do not open it to interpretation.
And if you'd like to find a flaw in my interpretation of your arguments, well, I'm sure you'll twist them as you accused me of.
I don't play that game, except when others use it against me first. I do give the benefit of the doubt.
Only a third party would really be able to tell how accurate my review of our arguments were, though I find such reviews to be an important part of a debate.
Since the debate is there to be read, it's just an exercise in Spin. Such efforts are attempts to control the direciton of the debate, NOT review. If you want to review, you can go back and re-read it, which means such re-presentations are just a debating tool trying to spin perception. That's why I only reject such attempts wholesale.
I know I purposefully left out parts from both of us, and indeed large swaths from you as you seem determined to respond to individual sentences, instead of full ideas, and thus allow your arguments to wander in fairly random directions at times.
But if you're done, that's fine.It is tiresome debating someone who is more interested in picking apart the wording and idea of individual sentences, without regard for their relation to others, especially when you revert back and forth between doing that, and simply not responding to any of the arguments that have been made.
Except that is not what I do. I don't treat each sentence individually and I retain the context in my discussions. I have seen people that do what you claim, but it's not what I do. Are any of my above retorts out of context?
For example, your last post in which the only thing you do is overreact to one misspoken word, ignoring that I had talked about Duty and Obedience before you mentioned the klog, though perhaps not before you claim to have first mentioned the klog.
That timing is not obvious from the statement. Your unintended sentence lacks the required timing to place it in the history where you want it, and can mean that you had not read the Klog before the subject of Duty came up.
Anyway, we can put your little semantics issue of the word scout behind us and get back to the question that was at hand: Can a lone unit without siege or flying special take an unmanned city?
Again, that is *NOT* the question. The fundamental question came from oslecamo (Page 5 on my list):
oslecamo2_temp wrote:-If you don't have any defenders in the city, a lone enemy scout can just waltz in and take it.
The unit being a Scout was specified.
I kind of think they would be able to since Erfworld's rules are so strongly based on computer/tabletop game rules, and you can generally take undefended cities without any real trouble in those sorts of games. Still, there isn't anything definet one way or the other, so it's really all conjecture unless someone can find a strong indication one way or the other in the comics.
Everyone's knowledge of computer games is different. Some games let Roman Legionaries destroy WW2 Tanks, so computer games can't be used as guides for Erfworld rules. Until Rob tells us which games inspired his rules (which will never happen), we can't assume that one game or another provided Rules. Lots of people have suggested rules inspiration from tabletop war games, but Rob has stated he has played few of those. You see similarity because it's a natural human trait to find pattern in things. That you find similarity means little, since you can't know if Rob even played the games you are thinking of.