Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dakuth" data-source="post: 5956606" data-attributes="member: 88006">It's a shame what is no doubt a useful thread is degenerating like this. But I just can't help myself.um. No. It's there for all to read, above, so I won't go into it further.That is correct - however you could have been right, if only you'd quoted a rule that showed you were right. You did not.I don't need to disprove, if you don't provide any evidence. You keep claiming that the rules clearly say ("in black and white") that spells pass right through AMF. Then you go ahead and quote a section of rules... that says nothing of the sort. I have no idea why you think you have.uh...uh... no... it's not. Putting aside the fact you have no exact quoting at all ... let's say you meant something like "What I've been saying is exactly what the rules are saying."For that to be true, what you'd need is a quote like the following:"For example, if a lightning bolt is cast through an antimagic field it would have no effect on targets inside the AMF, but would continue on and affect targets on the side."Or perhaps a little addition to the AM rules when talking about overlapping areas "this does not block line of effect."Without that, it certainly is open to interpretation (although see concession below, where I think it is fair to say it does not block LoE without further clarification.) The point is: If a game designer is to come out and say "antimagic field blocks LoE", unless you can quote a section of the rules that explicitly proves it does not (e.g. above two quotes) - it is SURELY RAI.uh... Let's just grab the text of rules, shall we? You've been so kind as to quote them... (makes me wonder why you think something is there, when it is not.)hrm. Funny. Nothing there about lightning bolts passing through. Nothing there about being able to cast through AMF.Now, I did concede that it is not entirely clear. You *could* interpret it to mean that if a thin spell area was laid down over a thin AMF, a portion is "snipped" out. This doesn't make *any* sense, logically, but it is magic and anything could happen.The other, more sane, way to read it is that it blocks LoE.Having said that (and here's a big concession you can take if you like) those rules, right there, imply more strongly that it WOULD continue on. It's certainly not "black and white." You certainly haven't provided any rule quotation that shows that lightning bolts definitely pass through, so therefore AMF definitely works like that. (That's circular logic, btw. 'I believe AM rules allow lightning bolt to pass through. I believe lightning bolts pass through, therefore the AM rules are right.')So the rules are unclear, and the default reading seems to be insane. What is one to do? Wouldn't the logical solution be to look for a ruling by someone with authority? An errata, a version update, a statement from the designers, a statement from a single designer.... ?? Anything?Yes. And we have that. And I have being bringing it up every. single. post.Disingenuous is pretty unfair. I clearly gave three similar scenarios. All these scenarios had one thing in common - a solid barrier between a and b.It was actually Passwall - but it wasn't until later in the debate I realised it opened an entire passage. I'm sure there must be other ways to stand in a solid wall though.A point we obviously disagree on. And I believe my reading is supported by one of the game designer's clarification.I've also found it frustrating for basically the same reasons - I've tried to keep it civil (and I don't think you strayed too far outside that TBH) but I may have not always been successful. If I have not, please accept my apologies.ah ha. I'm loathe to start another one but food for thought: Perhaps only AoE spells have a "point of origin"? (Which is what I assume you mean by "starting point.")</blockquote>

Verification