Asylum_Rhapsody

I don't think that anybody is arguing that No Guard doesn't reduce luck or that reducing luck and increasing risk are the same thing. Seriously, nobody thinks those are the same thing. That No Guard reduces luck, as I said in my first post in the thread, is just a nice side effect. And we most certainly did not agree that modifying accuracy has nothing to do with riskiness; what we agreed was that riskiness related to the luck associated with low accuracy was not the type of riskiness that we wanted to explore with this concept.

Are you having trouble distinguishing between the examples demonstrating increased risk and demonstrating reduced luck just because those happen to take place in the same example? Because those things are not mutually exclusive, so saying that the example demonstrates reduced luck does not preclude it from also demonstrating increased risk. I might as well ask, how doesn't No Guard increase risk? Like, don't reference luck at all in your explanation, just as I didn't in mine. I mean, you clearly recognize that No Guard is of detriment, because you just said so yourself. Is it that you think being of detriment alone does not increase risk? And if so, can you explain what you perceive the difference to be in this context?

ADDITION:

I don't understand what you set out to accomplish with your addition. Pretty much everything you said after saying you didn't think you needed to justify how No Guard isn't risky sounds like irrelevant rambling to me. I'm not saying that to try to be insulting. I just sincerely have no idea what you're trying to get at or why it matters here. Would it be possible at all for you to go back and point out exactly where in my explanation you got lost? Or answer some of the questions that I asked here in this post? The answer to them is important because I'm actually trying to understand what you're misunderstanding.

I want to zero-in on this, though, if I can:
"You claim it wasn't yet your ENTIRE argument was based around accuracy - aka luck... Of course your argument was luck-based, because that is all No Guard affects."
Accuracy and luck and risk are not mutually exclusive concepts, so I don't see how having an argument that is partially based on accuracy or luck automatically precludes it from also being based on risk. Yes, No Guard does affect luck. I don't think there's anybody that says that it doesn't. But that's not the only thing that it does, it's definitely not the only thing that's relevant to this concept, and it certainly wasn't the focus of the explanation. It is exactly as a result of reducing the impact of luck that No Guard increases risk, just as Hustle increases risk (just not the kind of risk that we want increased for this concept) by expanding the impact of luck. As far as I can tell, you are arguing against No Guard by drawing false distinctions.
If you want a condensed versions of my explanation, then maybe "It increases risk because it means you take more DPR" might make more sense?