Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4954396" data-attributes="member: 51942">We obvious have a difference of opinion on a few rules questions.&nbsp; Those questions might deserve further discussion, but I'm not the one to do so.&nbsp; I don't believe that the rules really matter that much here anyhow, in the sense that this is sufficiently far out of the ordinary that you'd need to take any &quot;RAW&quot; interpretation with a large grain of salt anyhow - after all, this situation is almost certainly not one they were written for.Regardless, we apparently agree on the (rather weak) statement that effects on powers might occur without a target.&nbsp; Your decision criteria would be a narrative one, requiring players to explain how (and thus why) they can do so; mine would focus more on consistency (between striking an empty square accidentally and intentionally).&nbsp; I do see the value in your approach, and would encourage (or even require) a narrative explanation - but I try to avoid having my rulings depend on the quality of explanation.&nbsp; I've had players that are pretty bad at describing the action their attempting, and I'd rather do it for them than let em fail when they describe poorly and succeed when they describe well.&nbsp; Which just goes to show that I'm a simulationist at heart...Signing off,--Eamon</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4954396, member: 51942"] We obvious have a difference of opinion on a few rules questions. Those questions might deserve further discussion, but I'm not the one to do so. I don't believe that the rules really matter that much here anyhow, in the sense that this is sufficiently far out of the ordinary that you'd need to take any "RAW" interpretation with a large grain of salt anyhow - after all, this situation is almost certainly not one they were written for. Regardless, we apparently agree on the (rather weak) statement that effects on powers [I]might[/I] occur without a target. Your decision criteria would be a narrative one, requiring players to explain how (and thus why) they can do so; mine would focus more on consistency (between striking an empty square accidentally and intentionally). I do see the value in your approach, and would encourage (or even require) a narrative explanation - but I try to avoid having my rulings depend on the quality of explanation. I've had players that are pretty bad at describing the action their attempting, and I'd rather do it for them than let em fail when they describe poorly and succeed when they describe well. Which just goes to show that I'm a simulationist at heart... Signing off, --Eamon [/QUOTE]

Verification