Invisibility doesn't actually work?

[Berengar]

@callen

@One Shot

@callen

Read again: "much the same," not "the same." "Much the same" means nearly the same, as opposed to exactly the same.

More precisely and completely:

@"MoH p.128 box [i

New Virtues and Flaws[/i] (underscore mine)"]New Virtue: See In Darkness Minor, Supernatural You can see in complete darkness much the same as those with Strong Faerie Blood. Other than that, your eyesight is not more acute than ordinary people’s, and you do not see farther than normal people would see in daylight.

If you wish to stress, that the Virtue lets you see in absolute darkness, you will not qualify that vision as "much the same as those with Strong Faerie Blood", because Strong Faerie Blood just does not do so.

No, that is not true. Both Virtues let you see clearly without the amount of light than human eyes could normally manage. That would be "much the same." Again, you distort to make your view valid, but I see the distortion.

Let me lay out your logic clearly:

1. Based on a single example of "darkness," you say "darkness" in Strong Faerie Blood cannot be absolute darkness. So you're using inductive reasoning to try to prove something, which is well known to be a logical fallacy.

You appear to be unable to read this text in context:

@"ArM5 p.49 [i

Strong Faerie Blood[/i] (underscore mine)"]This gives you the Virtue Second Sight (see page 48) at no cost, and you can see normally in darkness or semi-darkness, such as in deep woods or at night.

The two examples in it need to be meaningful and not arbitrary to appear in a rules text, as explained here and more in detail here.
We are not drawing conclusions from arbitrary miscellaneous facts found in a book. Rather we are reading rules, assuming that they are meaningful as they are written, and that the examples contribute to their meaning.

Cheers