Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2684058" data-attributes="member: 20805">Anubis Yet again.. &quot;Source and listing are the same thing.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;Think this way: Rectangles and Squares.&nbsp; Not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles....&nbsp; Not all of the source {FAQ} is errata, but all of the listing {errata} is.The Errata is a consolidated list of all changes made 'official' by the RnD team.The FAQ is a conglomeration of rules clarifications, Sage Opinions, and potential rules changes that {once validated} may be made 'official' in a reprint. If WOTC were nice enough to identify what each FAQ answer was, as they do in the SW FAQ, then this whole discussion would be moot. Since they dont.. those of us who don't agree with the all or nothing approach will continue to disagree with your stance.The problem lays with the all or nothing approach you are voicing. I agree that once a FAQ answer is incorperated into the PHB that it can be called errata. Prior to that is is unclear whether the answer can be errata, clarification, or an editing mistake.I say jdrakeh has it right on the money. Funny, I have asked before if you can understand.. if not agree with.. my stance on this issue. The only reponse I have gotten so far is 'WOTC HATH SPOKEN'&nbsp; &nbsp; :\&nbsp;Perhaps my screen name or post count is getting in the way of being taken seriously.Almost makes me want to change it, but after so many years of casual postings to get this far... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primitive Screwhead, post: 2684058, member: 20805"] [b]Anubis[/b] Yet again.. "Source and listing are the same thing." Think this way: Rectangles and Squares. Not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles.... Not all of the source {FAQ} is errata, but all of the listing {errata} is. The Errata is a consolidated list of all changes made 'official' by the RnD team. The FAQ is a conglomeration of rules clarifications, Sage Opinions, and potential rules changes that {once validated} may be made 'official' in a reprint. If WOTC were nice enough to identify what each FAQ answer was, as they do in the SW FAQ, then this whole discussion would be moot. Since they dont.. those of us who don't agree with the all or nothing approach will continue to disagree with your stance. The problem lays with the all or nothing approach you are voicing. I agree that once a FAQ answer is incorperated into the PHB that it can be called errata. Prior to that is is unclear whether the answer can be errata, clarification, or an editing mistake. I say [B]jdrakeh[/B] has it right on the money. Funny, I have asked before if you can understand.. if not agree with.. my stance on this issue. The only reponse I have gotten so far is 'WOTC HATH SPOKEN' :\ Perhaps my screen name or post count is getting in the way of being taken seriously. Almost makes me want to change it, but after so many years of casual postings to get this far... :p [/QUOTE]

Verification