I'm saying if it was a rules update, it would have been included in the rules updates that just went through... since, y'know, he heads up the rules update team.
Compendium update was the 4th.
New book came out on the 18th.
Most.
Recent.
Printing.
It to be included in the rules updates, which are official. This is a book about player strategy, not a rulebook.
That includes a rules faq written by the head of the brand at the time. Rules. FAQ. Sorry, in your bizzaro world, perhaps the designers of the game turn off their brains and go 'DUR THIS R HINT BOOK IT NOT NEED ACCURATE RULES' but where I come from, if the guy in charge of the rules is writing a book, and it's giving hints on the rules, and faqs on the rules, it better be accurate.
This 'It's just a guide' crap doesn't apply when the writer WAS the rules guy, and the section in question IS a rules faq.
You can shut off your brain at that part. I won't.
We've got a new rules update coming in July. Maybe it'll happen then. Maybe it won't. Until it does, it's not an official rule, it's just a piece of advice that doesn't match the actual rules.
And until a -recent- printing or rules update countermands it, it's an official rules faq. It's a Faq. On the rules
EDIT: Also, the book's introduction directly tells you to check D&D Insider and the Compendium for the latest version of game elements referenced by the book. So, even the book itself would agree that the compendium is the latest source for that info.
D&D insider never includes the rules or concepts printed in a book on the day it is put out.
Never has, never will.
Or are you telling me, for example, that the PHB2 keyword updates didn't apply until -after- the compendium was updated?
Hell, this isn't even Magic: the Gathering here.
Let's look at it in a more realistic light. They put out a book that says the rules are now a certain way, which directly contradicts previous rules. That's an agreement. The book is -intended- for people to read and get character-building ideas from, so the information there should be as accurate as possible.
If they then go and overrule the most pertinent bit of information there, then the book's usefulness plummets. Lots of tables (despite what people will claim) don't use the online rules updates, they just go with what's in the books--this is because this is how the hobby has worked for 30 years or so. So, I can see them 'reluctantly' changing the rule to fit the new book.
Hell, don't even act like this is a new thing that's never happened in 4e. They change the rules for character-building friendliness all the time. This is not a new thing, and it's more cogent to believe this is another example of that, rather then that it's some huge error.
