unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

No, i meant because grapple can extend beyond your turn, into another turn, and they can try to break i then i guess.

 

[bestone]

You know, i think its just a wee bit egotistical of you to claim you know the rules better than the game designers, and know how they are to be properly interpreted and used, regardless of what they say. And there are more than one saying so, i've now quoted two, and the faq.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, i meant because grapple can extend beyond your turn, into another turn, and they can try to break i then i guess.

... ahh.

So Disarm and Trip have Footnote 7 because you can Counterdisarm or Countertrip, and Grapple has Footnote 7 because it can extend beyond your turn into another turn and they can try to break it then, and Sunder doesn't but can be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO anyway?

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

You know, i think its just a wee bit egotistical of you to claim you know the rules better than the game designers,

He hasn't claimed such; he quotes the rules as the writers wrote them.

Rule of Law as opposed to Rule of Edict.

Not that Hyp doesn't have reason to be egotistical about his rules-fu, but he hardly ever is, even if he is quite skilled at poking holes in others' arguments vis-a-via the socratic method.

and know how they are to be properly interpreted and used, regardless of what they say.

Your pronoun "they" is unclear: do you mean "regardless of what game designers say" or do you mean "regardless of what the rules as written in the core books say".

And there are more than one saying so, i've now quoted two, and the faq.

Your two articles and the FAQ are indeed well cited. They are not, however, the primary source. So when the primary source and the articles, FAQ, message board posts come in conflict, the primary source takes precident. It is then our duty so see what it is that the primary source says.

And within the primary source there is no inconsistency of the text and table if Sunder is a Standard Action, unusable during an AoO.

 

[bestone]

Errata is listed as a primary source

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
er·ra·ta
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-rah-tuh, i-rey-, i-rat-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. pl. of erratum.

2. a list of errors and their corrections inserted, usually on a separate page or slip of paper, in a book or other publication; corrigenda.

–noun, plural -ta
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-tuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. 1. an error in writing or printing.
2. a statement of an error and its correction inserted, usually on a separate page or slip of paper, in a book or other publication; corrigendum.

er·ra·tum (ĭ-rä'təm, ĭ-rā'-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. er·ra·ta (-tə)
An error in printing or writing, especially such an error noted in a list of corrections

I think the faq could possibly be considered errata

Expecially if you consider the fact that wizards considers them official

The faq is written as an "official" publication of rules fixes, qualifying it as erratta under the dictionary.com definiton of eratta. and this eratta comes from wizards.

 

[bestone]

Hyp stated in one of the first few posts, that there could be multiple interpretations on the rules, but he things he is right, and told us why that is.

Right now he's stating that thier interpretation is wrong, and only his can be the one that is "true" - this to me is an egotistical statement

I think that hyp can have a valid interpretation

I also believe that the game-makers have a valid interpretation *expecially considering they are the ones that wrote the rules they are interpreting*

saying your absolutely right, no if ands or butts but the guys who wrote and created the rules your interpreting are wrong in thier interpretation of thier own rules....to me doesnt add up.

Some people take hyp's statements as more truth about the rules than the game designers, they are entitled to that opinion.

I dont share it, i think they knew what they wanted the rules to representt, and i feel that they are interpreting the rules correctly. I believe that and im entitled to that opinion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Errata is listed as a primary source

Absolutely.

I think the faq could possibly be considered errata

You'll find that Errata and FAQ are two separate pages on the Wizards website.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp stated in one of the first few posts, that there could be multiple interpretations on the rules

I said that I thought there could be multiple interpretations of one sentence in the Sunder text taken in isolation.

I further said that once it was considered in conjunction with the rest of the rules, only one remained.

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

Absolutely.



You'll find that Errata and FAQ are two separate pages on the Wizards website.

-Hyp.

Yes i do find that, i also find that the faq could fall under the dictionary definition of eratta.

And thus, not being under the eratta section of wizards.com wouldnt mean that it is not eratta, as it is defined as such.

It might not mean it is eratta you can refer to via a primary source, but the wording for the primary source doesnt say eratta listed under the eratta rules section of wizards.com it seems to suggest any eratta that is published.

If that faq was published in a book, i doubt we'd be discussing this.

 

[bestone]

I said that I thought there could be multiple interpretations of one sentence in the Sunder text taken in isolation.

I further said that once it was considered in conjunction with the rest of the rules, only one remained.

-Hyp.

And the fact that you consider only your interpretation to be the only right one is an egotistical statement imho

I seem to recall people earlier giving me the gears for not being able to succeed that there might possibly be other valid ways to read the rules.