NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7510717" data-attributes="member: 2525">Say what now? Nope. Read again:<img src="https://i.imgur.com/7OyZlpU.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /><img src="https://i.imgur.com/byBwZdh.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />STOP saying RAW and RAI. We don't know what RAW meant (that's how we got literally five different answers on this one topic - we know for sure RAW is unclear) and we also don't know what RAI was (that's how we got contradictory answers from the very people who wrote this rule). I mean if you reaaallllly want RAI, then explain to me this: why wouldn't the answer given by the author closer in time to when he created the rule be more likely to reflect his authorial intent than an answer he gave three years after that point? Lacking additional information (and we have none) wouldn't his memory of his intent be fresher three years ago than it would be now?You want to use his latest answer for AL? Cool, I have no issue with that. My issue is those calling any of this Rules as Written or Rules As Intended or who are acting like there is no judgement call involved here. There is a judgement call here. However people make that judgement call should be OK. It's a pretty odd situation where an author changes his mind in an opposite way about what a rule he wrote is supposed to do. Cut people some slack for agreeing with an earlier judgement of that same authort about this rule.  After all...they're thinking about this matter exactly how the author of this rule was thinking about this matter at one point.</blockquote>

Verification