Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dakuth" data-source="post: 5956434" data-attributes="member: 88006">Correct. You're examples are wrong because the contradict Skip Williams. As you say below, you're welcome to rule otherwise but doing so is basically going against RAI (and IMO RAW.) Not that that's really bad thing, but it is what it is.Indeed. He is only human. I've seen no evidence that he is in this case, though.You'd have to show me some evidence of that. There's nothing in the rules that I've ever read that would ever require you to make attacks rolls, or block the bead (over and above LoE which blocks nearly all spells.)Essentially yes. So the onus is now on you to prove otherwise - since he IS an authority on the matter. (one way, for example, to prove him wrong would be to show an authority contradicting him, then determining which authority has higher precedence.)No. The rules for AMF *do not say that at all*. I have asked you to quote it, and you haven't. Why? Because they're not there.As written, they do imply it almost entirely because the spell does not explicitly say that it blocks LoE. This leaves many people scratching their heads. Why would AMF suppress a spell like that, then let it continue? Why can you simply land a fireball on the other side of a AMF? Do we have to take into account that it passes through? Summoned creatures have to pause in there... do spells? etc. etc. etc.Some clarity would be nice.What's this? A quote from one of the designers clarifying!? OMG. How helpful. What does he say? Oh right, blocks LoE. That makes *total* sense.I'm glad you're so amused by basic logic. You must be a very jolly fellow. For any cone or line spell, you need to have LoE from yourself, to any point in the area.By YOUR logic, that means you could cast a line or cone spell through a closed doorYou sure are easily amused. Do you find that not many people get your humour?As I said above. You are welcome to run it how you like as well. I merely posted here because I thought others who stumble on this thread might like some official clarification on the matter. And while Mr. Williams is not the only authority on the matter - until one *actually contradicts him* it's a fair statement to say the Rules As Intended is that AntiMagic Field blocks Line of Effect.(Personally I'd say it's Rules As Written, but I could concede a point of disagreement with that.)</blockquote>

Verification