>>56019779The move deals the status, the status deals the damage, the status dealt the damage as a result of using the move, so the move is a damaging moves.
>>56019790That's not weaseling out, that's just knowing what words mean and sticking to literal definitions. That's the entire point of this argument, that you're using the wrong terms for what you want to say. Pointing out that you did it again isn't a dodge.
>Attacks is an in-game term A point I never denied, and only said it was too broad a term to be useful for this purpose.
>any dispute can be proven/disproven with Wonder Guard+Magic Guard I've already given many specific examples of why this isn't the case.
>and yet you still bitch that it's "unclear" when it clearly isn'tBecause instead of responding to my examples, you just repeated your claim as if I didn't say anything, so this conversation isn't going anywhere.
>>56019799Aside from petty grammar notes I'm ok with these rules. I'd prefer if multi hit moves that always hit the same number of times and result in less than 60 total BP were allowed, but that's not an inconsistency that's just a preference.
