Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2681245" data-attributes="member: 20805">My issue with FAQ = Errata is simply this. There is a lack of notation in the FAQ that specifies 'this is a change of the rule' or 'this is a suggestion from the Sage'.&nbsp;Hence, as the sheath w/ move line.. is that intended as a suggested HR as including this option does not imbalance the game and can make sense in game. Or is it intended as a correction to the rule.&nbsp;If you come to my table and attempt to use this rule in play, I will negate it as I beleive it to be a suggested HR that I have no desire to adopt. {and honestly only know about courtesy of these threads}I would prefer if WOTC continued updating the Errata, using the FAQ as a source for some of that material, or started tagging changes in the FAQ as they apparently have done with the SW FAQ.Anubis.. I still think you are arguing something completely different that what those who disagree with you. Is the FAQ being used as Errata? Yup. That has been proven. Should it be? Not in its current less than reliable format. &nbsp;Until it becomes more reliable and less vague, it will remain {for me} as 'official' as posts here in the HR forum. It is obvious from your oft quote of &quot;WotC says they're right&quot; that you are willing to take the FAQ as reliable in its current state.[sidetrack].. in the now closed thread you posted &quot;it is quite safe to assume that &quot;source&quot; and &quot;listing&quot; are the same thing.&quot;&nbsp; Source = derived from, such as greek mythology was one of the sources of the SW plotlines.&nbsp; Listing = enumeration of, such as the credits at the end of SW letting you know who the actors were.How can these be the same?[/sidetrack]&nbsp;I can understand how you have arrived at your conclusions with the meanings you have applied to 'source' and 'official'. I have yet to see any hint that you can understand how I arrive at my conclusions with different meanings. This isn't a Clinton 'depends on what is is' deal, this is a debate concerning a set of rules defined in very specific language. Precise use of meanings is required in order to properly convey the truth... something Cust Serv and the FAQ could learn from.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primitive Screwhead, post: 2681245, member: 20805"] My issue with FAQ = Errata is simply this. There is a lack of notation in the FAQ that specifies 'this is a change of the rule' or 'this is a suggestion from the Sage'. Hence, as the sheath w/ move line.. is that intended as a suggested HR as including this option does not imbalance the game and can make sense in game. Or is it intended as a correction to the rule. If you come to my table and attempt to use this rule in play, I will negate it as I beleive it to be a suggested HR that I have no desire to adopt. {and honestly only know about courtesy of these threads} I would prefer if WOTC continued updating the Errata, using the FAQ as a source for some of that material, or started tagging changes in the FAQ as they apparently have done with the SW FAQ. [b]Anubis[/b].. I still think you are arguing something completely different that what those who disagree with you. Is the FAQ being used as Errata? Yup. That has been proven. Should it be? Not in its current less than reliable format. Until it becomes more reliable and less vague, it will remain {for me} as 'official' as posts here in the HR forum. It is obvious from your oft quote of "WotC says they're right" that you are willing to take the FAQ as reliable in its current state. [sidetrack].. in the now closed thread you posted "it is quite safe to assume that "source" and "listing" are the same thing." Source = derived from, such as greek mythology was one of the sources of the SW plotlines. Listing = enumeration of, such as the credits at the end of SW letting you know who the actors were. How can these be the same?[/sidetrack] I can understand how you have arrived at your conclusions with the meanings you have applied to 'source' and 'official'. I have yet to see any hint that you can understand how I arrive at my conclusions with different meanings. This isn't a Clinton 'depends on what is is' deal, this is a debate concerning a set of rules defined in very specific language. Precise use of meanings is required in order to properly convey the truth... something Cust Serv and the FAQ could learn from. [/QUOTE]

Verification