Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2060329" data-attributes="member: 2011">I prefer people to be honest.If it is your interpretation of RAW, fine. Say so.If it is &quot;designer intent&quot;, leave it on the general discussion boards. None of us know designer intent on the not so well written rules unless an actual designer tells us. By placing the &quot;intent&quot; or &quot;designer intent&quot; label on a rule, you are backhandedly and arrogantly pretending that your interpretation is correct and superior whereas everyone else's is incorrect and inferior. And of course, this is a subtle way of doing this where you can pretend that you did not (That was not my &quot;intent&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).Caliban is not correct merely because he says &quot;I don't believe that is the intent. I believe the intent is that you just get the +1 AC.&quot;.Designer intent has no place on the rules forum (IMO) unless you can back up such a claim with Emails from the designers or quotes from the FAQ. Otherwise, it is YOUR interpretation being hidden behind the label of &quot;intent&quot;. That's an invalid debating technique.If you would drop the &quot;this is not the intent&quot; from your posts, I would not have any problem with you giving your opinion about the rules. You have quoted &quot;intent&quot; on virtually every ruling that you have made in the past few weeks where you and I have disagreed.But this pretending that you have the designers behind you in your interpretations when you do not is lame.And yes, every time you quote &quot;intent&quot; when you do not have really have FAQ to back it up, I am going to quote &quot;the mystical divination of designer intent&quot;. If it is ok for you to make this stuff up, it is ok for me to call you on it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 2060329, member: 2011"] I prefer people to be honest. If it is your interpretation of RAW, fine. Say so. If it is "designer intent", leave it on the general discussion boards. None of us know designer intent on the not so well written rules unless an actual designer tells us. By placing the "intent" or "designer intent" label on a rule, you are backhandedly and arrogantly pretending that your interpretation is correct and superior whereas everyone else's is incorrect and inferior. And of course, this is a subtle way of doing this where you can pretend that you did not (That was not my "intent". ;) ). Caliban is not correct merely because he says "I don't believe that is the intent. I believe the intent is that you just get the +1 AC.". Designer intent has no place on the rules forum (IMO) unless you can back up such a claim with Emails from the designers or quotes from the FAQ. Otherwise, it is YOUR interpretation being hidden behind the label of "intent". That's an invalid debating technique. If you would drop the "this is not the intent" from your posts, I would not have any problem with you giving your opinion about the rules. You have quoted "intent" on virtually every ruling that you have made in the past few weeks where you and I have disagreed. But this pretending that you have the designers behind you in your interpretations when you do not is lame. And yes, every time you quote "intent" when you do not have really have FAQ to back it up, I am going to quote "the mystical divination of designer intent". If it is ok for you to make this stuff up, it is ok for me to call you on it. [/QUOTE]

Verification