Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7110598" data-attributes="member: 82106">I firmly believe that one of 4e's principles and goals was rules which are categorical and canonical, clear, understandable, and as free of corner cases and ambiguity as is feasible in an open-ended refereed game where the action could clearly go some arbitrary distance removed from what the authors anticipated.Equally clearly it wasn't as clear and concise as it was intended. If you are a wargamer, as I am, and an engineer, as I am, and thus used to very precisely worded systems of rules and such, then you don't find 4e's attempt to be particularly stunningly well-written. Honestly, its not bad for a 2nd draft of a set of rules that still needs to be gone over by someone who actually writes such things as board games with 50 pages of rules or something like that. My couple of years on the Q&A thread definitely showed that 4e was not there, nor even that close really.I mean, just answer me this simple question, what in 4e does the term 'attack' mean? Given that its central to the way the rules work, you should be able to do this. Good luck...</blockquote>