[b]Number of people who didn't fully comprehend the OP: 18.[/b]
Armour lock is an [i]absolute counter[/i] to the sword.
Here's the scenario: I have a sword, and I lunge at you. You armour-lock, taking out my shields and stunning me, and then you pop out and pummel me.
I've done nothing wrong. I've simply used the sword the only way it can be used. Despite this, any competent armour-locker (Lol oxymoron) can kill me with ease.
There is [i]no way I can prevent this,[/i] save not using the sword at all.
How is that [i]fine?[/i] How is that [i]balanced?[/i]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8x0-DFi5Jg]Proof.[/url]
[Edited on 04.15.2011 1:56 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] tsujen [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SonOfTheShire There is [i]no way I can prevent this,[/i] save not using the sword at all. How is that [i]fine?[/i] How is that [i]balanced?[/i][/quote] You can use armor lock to. That is how it's balanced, because you chose not to use it, is not our fault. [/quote] No, that's how it's fair. Balanced would mean that it would provide the same amount of advantages and disadvantages as all the other AAs. However, it does a lot more than that.