Something tells me you've never done well on persuasive essays. There's this thing called "addressing the argument" where you point out the flaws in their reasoning, rather than just calling it stupid and expecting anybody matching your IQ to see your point of view. Especially when the latter relies on a great deal of self-flattery.
Meanwhile, you yourself are also basing "evidence" of Fleche and Contre Sixte being ice-aspected purely on their animations and sounds as well, while simultaneously decrying others who do the same to refute it.
Right, so at best we're coming to that there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other, and at worst it's still not doing ice damage.That's not proof of pure crystal either: Do a quick run of Shiva and tell me they she use crytal and not ice.. Even, look at the weapon she drop..
If -- as you so love to point out -- the animations are not enough, then what is your evidence that it's ice-aspected without animations? Because the damage type doesn't support that.
It's Final Fantasy, mate. Crystals are kind of a big deal. Just because you don't see enemies throwing actual shards of crystal to deal damage, doesn't mean there isn't evidence for crystallized aether -- that's literally what crystals are in this mythos.Also, I can't even find a example of any enemy using pure aether crystal attack
What it does mean is we could potentially be the first to use it as an attack. Or we just aren't looking hard enough.
Whatever you say, Mr. Pot.You literally overlook anything that doesn't back your point while picking at straws to prove yours...
I agree, it's a stupid argument. Elemental damage-type is purely cosmetic in the first place, since the game treats them all like "magic" damage and no enemy has elemental vulnerabilities/resistances anymore.
If we get new spells, who cares what element they are as long as they fit the kit. White Mages still aren't casting Meteor and Black Mages still aren't casting Raise.