free action to sheathe ?

[Caliban]

Indeed... 'mythical FAQ' comes fairly close to 'You're lying'. The 'Be polite' warning applies to everyone.

Doesn't the FAQ usually include the date in its filename? Unless the file's been renamed, it should be as simple as the difference between Main35FAQv04012005.pdf and Main35FAQv12012004.pdf, right?

-Hyp.

Yes they do. Which is why it's so strange that he no longer has the previous FAQ. The new one doesn't overwrite the old one, as they have different file names.

It's even more strange that he could never tell us the exact date of the FAQ, just "early 2005", when the date is in the file name and on the first page of the FAQ.

The 11/25/04 FAQ has the erroneous answers in it. The 1/28/05 FAQ (and all FAQ's after it) has the correction for the one question, but not any others.

I'm not calling him a liar, but the FAQ he's talking about doesn't exist. You decide what that makes him.

 

[Anubis]

I don't keep old copies of the same thing. As for the file names, indeed I do change them, for easy reference. The original filenames are a bit . . . messy . . . so I rename it "FAQ 3.5" and leave it at that. I like things as simple as possible. I don't have a habit of keeping around old things. Anytime I download and updated version of something I already have, I overwrite the old one. Hardly "convenient". In fact, given your newfound accusations of me lying, I'd say it's rather inconvenient.

Well, sorry bub, but if one of us is lying, it's not me; think of that statement what you will. I know what I read, and I know it existed, and I know I downloaded it shortly before starting my most recent campaign, and that happened shortly after my move in May. I simply can't believe you just "happen" to have all the old versions of FAQs lying around. You wanna talk about "convenient", well that's pretty darn "convenient".

If you continnue to call me a liar or accusing me of not knowing how to read, well, I will continue to retaliate in a not-so-polite manner.

 

[Coredump]

anubis posting for AndyThis is an unfortunate example of an old misinterpretation lingering far too
long. Thanks for catching the reference; I'll make sure it's fixed in later
publications of the FAQ.

But that is part of the problem. It was the *Sage's* mistake that is *still* in the FAQ

anubisOh, and whether you like it or not, the FAQ is 100% official in every way, including rules changes and errata.

What CustServ actually said

anubis posting for custserv1. Absolutely, the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. It is considered to be official.

Note, that while they say 'absolutely', what they follow with is that the FAQ is for rules *clarifications*

Now the question they did not answer is "There are statements made in the FAQ, that go against the rules written in the books, but they are not labeled as errata, nor are they even noted as being a change at all. Are those mistakes? Or should the FAQ be considered the new primary source, even if the changes are not called out as such?"
It would also help to follow up with some of those statements, like the sheathing during movement, and changing out light one two handed labels work.



I wonder if the old FAQ's are still on the WoTC site.

Anubis, part of the problem is that the person you 'went after' was Hypersmurf, and he had never said anything about your reading ablility. In fact, you had called and implied him a liar more than once, and several posts before anyone questioned you reading ability. Your claims of 'self-defense' ring hollow. And previous to that you were telling people to "stop your nonsense" because they believed differently than you did.

 

[Anubis]

What CustServ actually said

Note, that while they say 'absolutely', what they follow with is that the FAQ is for rules *clarifications*

You wanna talk about "not knowing how to read"? . . . Wait, no, you've got "selective reading" . . . You ignore the fact that there are two questions on there, and that I followed up the first answer (which was indeed vague, as you pointed out) with a second question asking for a direct answer. Allow me to quote myself.

I asked: "Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?"

The response was: "Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official."

I asked a simple yes or no question and got a yes.

Read the whole thing next time, ya?

 

[Coredump]

Well, sorry bub, but if one of us is lying, it's not me; think of that statement what you will. I know what I read, and I know it existed, and I know I downloaded it shortly before starting my most recent campaign, and that happened shortly after my move in May. I simply can't believe you just "happen" to have all the old versions of FAQs lying around. You wanna talk about "convenient", well that's pretty darn "convenient".

Speaking of reading, it was Peter Gibbons that had the April FAQ, the one you would have apparently used. And he said it was in there also. In fact, a LOT of people, over the last several months, have seen it in there. (This has been a regular point of conversation when these FAQ discussions crop up.) In fact, you are the *first* person I have ever heard of to say it was *not* in there. Now, it is possible that you got the one, short lived, consistent version, wedged in between months of inconsistent before and after.... Or it may be possible, just possible mind you, that perhaps you didn't find the part that had the issue.
Of course, perhaps not, since eventhough you overwrote the FAQ right away, you remembered the passage well enough to *know* it was the same section and question that you had specifically checked, even though you had no way of knowing which question was the problem.

 

[Caliban]

I don't keep old copies of the same thing. As for the file names, indeed I do change them, for easy reference. The original filenames are a bit . . . messy . . . so I rename it "FAQ 3.5" and leave it at that. I like things as simple as possible. I don't have a habit of keeping around old things. Anytime I download and updated version of something I already have, I overwrite the old one. Hardly "convenient". In fact, given your newfound accusations of me lying, I'd say it's rather inconvenient.

LOL

Well, sorry bub, but if one of us is lying, it's not me; think of that statement what you will. I know what I read, and I know it existed, and I know I downloaded it shortly before starting my most recent campaign, and that happened shortly after my move in May. I simply can't believe you just "happen" to have all the old versions of FAQs lying around. You wanna talk about "convenient", well that's pretty darn "convenient".

Not really, just lazy. I download all the FAQ's and errata to the same folder, and I rarely bother to delete the old ones.

If you continnue to call me a liar or accusing me of not knowing how to read, well, I will continue to retaliate in a not-so-polite manner.

Well, since I have proof and you don't. *shrug*

Your just digging yourself deeper. I can post the FAQ's anytime you want.

 

[Anubis]

You have proof? Hardly. Unless you can verify that a) you have every single FAQ released for 3.5 and b) none of them are without contradiction, unless you can verify both of those, you have nothing. Anyone can post just the FAQs that shows them to be right. I only need one FAQ to prove me right, while you need all of them to go your way to prove your own point.

Granted I didn't have every FAQ, but I'm damn certain that I downloaded it right before my newest campaign, which would be within six months before my move in May. I may not have updated monthly, but I did check almost every quarter (except for the quarter during my move since I was preoccupied with more important things). Still, the point is, the FAQ had no contradictions at that time. It's not my fault if contradictions arose in the time since then, and Andy Collins has addressed the issue anyway, so that leaves you with very little to go on as far as contradictions go (seeing as it was a simple oversight).

 

[Iku Rex]

I just got the newest FAQ today. Up until you made your post, I was using the one immediately prior to that, and in that one, the rulings don't contradict. How you could use it for months when the change has only been around for a week or two is beyond me.

In the FAQ I had from early 2005, ...

I downloaded it shortly before starting my most recent campaign, and that happened shortly after my move in May.

Granted I didn't have every FAQ, but I'm damn certain that I downloaded it right before my newest campaign, which would be within six months before my move in May.

I'm trying to locate this mystery-FAQ of yours and I'm having a hard time finding it. (It's not Main35FAQv05272005 if anyone else is looking through their old documents.) Could you clarify the above statements? Are we talking about the next to latest FAQ? Are we talking about a FAQ from around May? Are we talking about some FAQ from (at the latest) 6 months before May? (In the latter case you've moved into the time when the FAQ didn't have the contradction, as I'm sure you know.)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I asked: "Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?"

The response was: "Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official."

Here is what I meant by arguing against rules lawyers. Your question and the WOTC answer include an assumption of the word 'Official'... and assumptions are never a good thing.

Your obvious intent is that 'Official' in this context means that the rules clarifications in the FAQ supplant previously published rules.

However...
I read 'Official' to mean coming from a properly invested source {see M-W online }, which is to say that the FAQ is simply a product of WOTC instead of some third party. With this interpretation 'Official' has no relevance on whether the rules clarification within it hold precedence over previous material.

Had you asked something like "Do the rulings published in the FAQ take precedence over the PHB or DMG when they are in contradiction", then you would have an answer to support your concept of 'Official'. As you didn't, all you got was marketing doubletalk that holds no real meaning for me.. and apparently for others on this board as well.

As to the budding un-politeness...
From the sidelines I see one side claiming to perfectly remember an entire FAQ that they read sometime in the last 6 months.
The other side is claiming that they are lazy and have copies of all the 2005 FAQs, which they have checked for the contradictory statement in question in order to support thier argument.

Bad news.. I would believe Caliaban is lazy before I beleive any other poster on this board has that good of a memory recall. {no disrespect intended Caliban }

I also thought Anubis' early posts were a but on the insensitive side.. altho given most of my posts can/have been read that way I tend to give alot of grace before deciding its not worth responding to. Some of the insensitive posts are in very good threads...and I have debated {and lost} against both Caliban and Hypersmurph in some of those.

To sum it up.. is it worth getting a vacation from these boards? My suggestion is to drop the issue and move on to other threads.

JMHO

 

[werk]

Sheath as a free action? I think you got your answer