Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3815114" data-attributes="member: 1656">I responded to "the table incorrectly omitted this information" with "The table did not omit information"; I can't really see how what I wrote had nothing to do with what I was responding to... apart from the fact that they were contradictory...?Entirely your prerogative.Not so at all.  I agree that I disagree with the FAQ; I don't agree that this constitutes being wrong.  And I disagree that what the forthcoming Rules Compendium says is the same as what the Core Rules say; once it's published, if the RC supercedes the Core Rules, my interpretation of Sunder will change to match the new rules.  Until that time, the Rules Compendium has no bearing on the rules; after that time, while it may change the rules of Sunder, it won't change what they were.Table 8-2 disagrees with the FAQ.  The FAQ is not RAW, and does not supercede the table found in the primary source.Table 8-2 disagrees with the preview of the Rules Compendium.  If the RC is errata, it will supercede the table when it is published, at which point the rules will change.Until that time, nothing changes Table 8-2's definition of Sunder as a standard action.-Hyp.</blockquote>