Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 4308993" data-attributes="member: 9391">Here's how I read Sage Advice and that kind of stuff. &quot;Here's an impartial interpretation of the rules. Feel free to use it if your group wasn't able to come to a consensus on how to interpret the rules.&quot;I can see why some people might have a problem with that, and want the TRUE answer, but personally I'm fine with it. (And, heck, according to recent posts from someone who used to have that job at Wizards, that's factually true, anyway. The &quot;official ruling&quot; is still just some guy with a lot of game knowledge making the best judgement call he can. Not much different from the DM making a judgement call, all considered.)If you want a game that has exact legalistic interpretations, go with Magic: the Gathering. Although, even there, you'll see people playing the game at official tournaments for money, and still have two different judges issue two different rulings.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SweeneyTodd, post: 4308993, member: 9391"] Here's how I read Sage Advice and that kind of stuff. "Here's an impartial interpretation of the rules. Feel free to use it if your group wasn't able to come to a consensus on how to interpret the rules." I can see why some people might have a problem with that, and want [i]the TRUE answer[/i], but personally I'm fine with it. (And, heck, according to recent posts from someone who used to have that job at Wizards, that's factually true, anyway. The "official ruling" is still just some guy with a lot of game knowledge making the best judgement call he can. Not much different from the DM making a judgement call, all considered.) If you want a game that has exact legalistic interpretations, go with Magic: the Gathering. Although, even there, you'll see people playing the game at official tournaments for money, and still have two different judges issue two different rulings. [/QUOTE]

Verification