Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6755995" data-attributes="member: 61529">You seem really committed to the notion that the rules are absolutely totally crystal clear and absolutely prohibit any ongoing durations-of-effects, but I haven't seen any support for it except that it's the best way for you to conclude that the rules were completely unambiguous. But it's not actually in the rules.I see nothing in the rules saying that, on reverting, you lose any existing/ongoing effects or magic. I also don't see anything saying they would have been wiped out when you changed form in the first place.You're clearly assumed to be dead, by the rule saying what can bring you back to life. It doesn't say &quot;if and only if being turned into dust kills you, you can be brought back to life only by...&quot;My view, which is unchanged so far, is that there's an ambiguity in the rules because two rules both specify what happens in a single circumstance, and appear contradictory. You can only do anything with inferences and assumptions, yes. That is what happens with a slightly-informal rule set.I can see why people would disagree on which conclusion to reach; what I don't get is the assertions that there's no ambiguity at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 6755995, member: 61529"] You seem really committed to the notion that the rules are absolutely totally crystal clear and absolutely prohibit any ongoing durations-of-effects, but I haven't seen any support for it except that it's the best way for you to conclude that the rules were completely unambiguous. But it's not actually [b]in[/b] the rules. I see nothing in the rules saying that, on reverting, you lose any existing/ongoing effects or magic. I also don't see anything saying they would have been wiped out when you changed form in the first place. You're clearly [b]assumed[/b] to be dead, by the rule saying what can bring you back to life. It doesn't say "if and only if being turned into dust kills you, you can be brought back to life only by..." My view, which is unchanged so far, is that there's an ambiguity in the rules because two rules both specify what happens in a single circumstance, and appear contradictory. You can only do [b]anything[/b] with inferences and assumptions, yes. That is what happens with a slightly-informal rule set. I can see why people would disagree on which conclusion to reach; what I don't get is the assertions that there's no ambiguity at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification