Actually if you pvp'd at all you'd know that vengeance does mitigate damage far better than immortal. Even the 31 version, and especially the 14/27 version.

IMO dark blood and sweeping fury are both meh especially for being that high up in the tree. Sweeping fury is definitely better than dark blood btw. Lastly crushing blow, it does really good damage but it has a 15 second cooldown. I level 1-50 without respecing once and I went with an immortal spec 31/10/0. Anyway about a week after I hit 50 I tried out rage and vengeance and various hybrid builds. In my original build I didn't even consider dark blood. At this point I respec back to immortal once in awhile when I miss the instant force choke and the backhand. I try rage every now and then but realize how boring it is. So I'm usually some form of vengeance or hybrid of vengeance spec currently. However... Do I miss dark blood? Nope, deafening defense is just better. Do i miss sweeping fury? Sure, if I'm forced to stay in soresu 24/7, but even then for being that high up in the tree for 3 points it basically gets you at most 1 extra potential rage every 3 seconds. Do I miss crushing blow? IMO impale with savagery and vengeance is just better. You get to impale every 9 seconds and scream every 9 seconds at a 60% increased crit chance. The real problem is if you're already far enough into immortal to get its best talents (back hand, and force grip), the only attacks you can pick up through talents are obliterate and crushing blow and crushing blow is infinitely better than obliterate.

Yep use crash to charge people so they become immune to your cc's good plan. Srsly crash is bad. If you're going to build resolve on someone ffs don't do it by turning a 2 second root that interrupts into a 2 second stun.

Take the 1 point out of crash and put it into lash out or stagger. Also I'd probably go 2/3 malice to fill out stagger.

it unnecessarily fills resolve. charge already interrupts casts and roots for 2 seconds the stun doesn't add a whole lot but fills resolve whereas regular charge doesn't.

drop shield spec revenge and crash. reinvest two of those points in either quake or lash out. put the remaining 3 points in either quake, lash out, or stagger.

I like it but without battle cry or enraged sunder you may have some rage problems even in shien form.

Thanks.

Deductive fallacy as to continuum fallacy in its applications. Continuum fallacy as you defined it is one aspect of continuum fallacy. The category is a bit broader than you've applied it as it encompasses pedantry and its tendencies. Anyway it's true I was a philosophy major back when I was in undergrad. Funny you said that I should sue you because I am about to take the CA bar. I must inform you however, that there is no recognized cause of action for pedantry. I too enjoy these types of discussions, but I don't like when it deconstructs into the flinging of verbal *****.

^ first off i'd like to point out the emphasis above which reveals the nature of the quoted poster as an obvious troll. Get over yourself, it's obvious you have some strange complex in which you have a need to condescendingly attempt to sound intelligent. First off the standard for a continuum fallacy is not as high as you would make it out to be. Here's the aspect of the fallacy to which I was referring: The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Second you didn't ask for more calculations you simply stated that he's wrong and that his math is wrong and that it can't be accurate because you needed every metric in the world to be accounted for under your standard. In the above you committed the fallacy of appealing to extremes at least twice. Also you've committed a deductive fallacy of taking one instance in which a term applies and generalizing it to be a required condition for which all other instances must apply. I don't understand why you feel the need to in every post get defensive and start throwing accusations my way. I don't have a need to be right. When I'm wrong it's no big deal I admit it, learn from it, and move on. However, I'm not going to let you off the hook here because again you're simply backpeddling the issues and now you've tweaked your claims ad hoc to save yourself. What does bother me is when the pot is calling the kettle black and then denies that it is relevant and tries to change to subject. Lastly, stop kidding yourself into believing that attacking my character will get you anywhere. Really it's just making you look like a condescending pedantic ******e.

You're trying to downplay it, but it kind of is a big deal when you're saying everyone else's math is wrong when you post an example which is blatantly wrong mathematically. How can you can argue that this is irrelevant. When essentially you're guilty of exactly that which you're accusing everyone else of doing? Math somehow matters when others make claims but somehow it's irrelevant when you make claims?

[This is where I said you were being pedantic and asked how his math was wrong.] This is where you say you can't say taunt reduces damage by 30% damage because of how it's applied right? I showed you how it's wrong. Your main point in all 3 posts is that his math is wrong and that yours is right. However, that is completely undermined by your statement above that somehow it matters when percentage reductions are formulated when they don't. You used it merely as an example but your example has math that is flawed. Which is the exact argument you are making in most of these posts (that others' have their math wrong). Anyway, "ladies and gentlemen" this is what people resort to when they know they are wrong but can't admit to it and they have nothing left to argue. They deny they claimed their ridiculous statements in the first place and try to ridicule the other person by claiming that the other person doesn't know how to argue. I'm the one here refuting you point by point. You're the one pointing fingers and denying your very own claims. Who's committing the fallacies here?

1. you stated this above then claimed that you weren't talking about the 30% but that Daays math was somehow wrong. 2. I asked how his math was wrong. 3. you said his math was wrong because in fact taunt 30% is applied before armor reduction as opposed to after. 4. I showed you how your point was completely irrelevant as it does not matter whether it's applied first or after. Also how are you claiming to know this information if you are now conceding that both values result the same? Weren't you the one asking for evidence? 5. you ran out of things to validly argue about so you resorted to attacking my argument based on my usage of internet memes? and for whatever reason you felt it necessary to post a definition of the word fallacy. 6. I presumed nothing yet you accused me of presuming that your statement was not intended by you to mean what it purports to explain - that taunt mitigation applying before or after armor reduction is somehow significant because you make it a point to specifically address it as an example. Now you are saying this is irrelevant (why the hell did you bring it up and use it as an example for your main point - which is that stuff like this is important and necessary and thus Daays and others should back their claims up with this garbage?) 7. When I asked you for your evidence earlier (which now I'm pointing out twice) I was being sarcastic, as I was merely trying to illustrate how stupid and pedantic you were being by requiring excessive needless and irrelevant information in making a point - that taunt reduces 30% of damage. 8. Now you are backpeddling and saying that you aren't arguing this and that you are arguing something else. So are you now recanting everything you said in response to my posts and Daays's posts? So you agree that your point about when taunt is applied is unnecessary and irrelevant? Consequently then you agree that your claims that Daays and others need to provide additional data and "the math" is also irrelevant and unnecessary? All you do here is post again and again that someone has committed a "logical fallacy" but you are completely oblivious as to your own. You're making strawman arguments by putting words in my mouth that I did not say. You've also committed a continuum fallacy - by improperly rejecting claims for being imprecise (your most obvious) Stop making claims you keep backpeddling out of because you know they're irrelevant and pedantic. Also if it were the case that my only purpose was to refute your posts is that an invalid purpose? My actual purpose here is to point out that your attacks on others' claims are baseless, irrelevant and frankly stupid. Does my purpose here have any affect on whether your claims are actually refuted? Do you know what logic is? Do you know what relevance is? To be fair, I may be presuming too much if you're unable to compute simple grade school math you may not have learned these other concepts yet.

Yes because my saying cool story bro is dispositive as to your obviously not knowing what you're talking about despite your claims that you actually do. If you didn't notice I'm being sarcastic in this statement above. ^ I'll be careful to point these out to you from now on sir.

Misleading as in you were leading us to believe that it actually mattered whether mitigation from taunt came before or after armor mitigation. I don't see how putting up a definition of fallacy helps you in any way. You need to go back to grade school so you can learn how math really works. Oh and now you seem to be changing your stance on the matter. You've been posting that Daays's math was wrong and that he needed specific evidence of every single thing you could possibly think of. I'm here to point out that it simply is not necessary and that you're a being pedantic troll. You haven't proved yourself otherwise yet. I'm calling you what you are. I'm not going to refrain from calling you a pedantic troll because you keep it over and over.

If you didn't notice I'm pointing out your fallacies because you seem to be the one making all the claims that others are committing them. However, in pointing them out your statements are just as bad if not worse. Not only that but you're being a pedantic troll.

cool story bro. you make stupid statements and i legit call you out on it and you point to a link. cool story.

Where is your evidence? And btw im using that one thing cuz that was all you quoted. Don't start blaming me for using that as the only example when that was the only thing you pointed out. Btw using your now so important distinction that the taunt mitigation is applied before armor lets see how that affects what we are talking about. Hypotetical: base dmg for smash is 10,000 and we have a target with armor mitigating 50%. 1st example: 10,000 smash base dmg reduced by 30% from taunt first (as you are making a huge deal for) reduces it to 7,000. Then lets reduce the 7,000 by 50% from armor which ends up being 3,500. 2nd example: 10,000 smash base dmg reduced by 50% from armor first (cuz you know this is such a big deal) reduces it to 5,000. Then lets reduce it by the 30% from taunt. Oh look at what it ends up resulting in... 3,500. In both cases it does not matter where the reduction is applied. What you will see as dmg without taunt will be 3,500. With taunt it'll be 5,000. Which means every time it'll be 30% less if you taunt. You are committing your own logical flaws of presenting baseless claims without math or evidence. Here is an example of me using math to demonstrate that you are being a pedantic troll.

Actually he does not need to prove any of that. All of that is irrelevant if he's giving basic formulas such as 30% mitigation via taunts. In your quote there is no math where any of this matters. You don't need to know the exact temperature of the sun to know that it is hot. You're really just being a pedantic troll at this point.

Where is his math wrong in what you quoted? The only plausible thing would be the 30% he mentioned in your quote. If you're referring to the 10,000 years for smash animation mr. hyperbole would like a word with you.

Actually i think he made solid points and you're the one who seems to be condescending here. Taunt affecting damage isnt anecdotal it's fact.

Lash out is stupid when your defense is at 5%. That's why you would want guard stance.

yay i'm in your first segment. i'm updog

Really doesn't take any guesswork. It's really as simple as hitting P...

if it doesn't say melee or force then it's neither. if it says melee its melee, if it says force it's force. i don't understand how you are confused.