Good thing i wasnt using my own definition of ammunition in that statement then... which is distinguished by being fired from a weapon, not by whatever it's composition is
(My point being that trying to argue an scb charge is "energy and raw material", which somehow makes it "not ammunition" is a pretty bizarre and irrelevant argument to make)
At point of being repetitive, I never said energy and material couldn't be ammunition, the way it's being used defines that, in the AFMU raw material could just as easily be referred to as stock, or some other similar expression. The SCB uses energy to recharge the shield, calling it ammunition it's like saying a battery contains ammunition, which is silly, but an explosive round does contain energy, potential energy but still energy.
Why would a device used to repair the ship be referred to as containing "ammunition". My point being the use to which that material is being put defines it, if it's fired from a weapon it is indeed ammunition, I mean if you are using a trebuchet just about anything is ammunition, rocks, burning tar balls, dead animal, but you wouldn't refer to a dead animal in the road as ammunition because that's not what it is.
I didn't define ammunition by what it is, you are the one claiming I did, I referred to the use of stuff in an AFMU as raw material because that's what it is being used as, raw material to repair the ship. The exact same stuff, re-manufactured and turned into bullets could indeed be ammunition, but it wouldn't be ammunition until it was turned into bullets, before that it's raw material used to make bullets.
Any the entire point is moot, we are getting multi-slot limpet controllers in update 9 so it's pretty pointless arguing the point!
