Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4352224" data-attributes="member: 162">It is.To avoid being hong-like, I'll attempt to explain why.The designers have attempted to make a rules framework that seems rather similar in construction to that of the rules framework of Magic. Keywords, specifically, give me that impression, and how a game element equipped with such-and-such keywords is supposed to be able to use those keywords to inform other game elements of how to interact with it.The problem, however, is that the designers did not codify presentation, formatting, or precisely how these keywords interact. While there seems to be some amount of consistency, there are a few cases in which there are bizarre interactions that don't seem to make any sense. You get conflicting answers from the rules - most likely the result of conflicting design decisions, IMO. Too many cooks have spoiled the soup.Because the system is not terribly robust, when you run into a situation in which a rule or power does not have the same kind of wording as most others, or references something or uses a keyword in a way that is not entirely consistent with the rest of the ruleset, or attempts to interface with another element in an inelegant fashion, you result in the rules giving two conflicting answers. Cloud of Daggers interacting with the minion rules is an example of an object attempting to interface with a class, and it returning two different answers - and it is because of the relatively ambiguous nature of the wording of the power. In an attempt to save space, WotC has introduced ambiguity.The Cloud of Daggers vs Minions problem seems to be a legitimate one. It is sensical that CoD would not autokill minions, but it is also sensical that it would - I could make arguments either way. Your appeal to RAI does not function here, because either of the interpretations of the RAW is a viable one.</blockquote>

Verification