I've updated the (still unofficial) ruling after further discussions
with the big thinkers at WotC.
I'll quote myself here, if it isn't too gauche to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfStar76
Sooooo. . . for what it's worth, and to further cloud the issue. . .
I was lucky enough to get into a disucssion on rules interpretations
and discussions with Chris Tulach and Chris Sims. As part of the
discussion I re-visited this issue with them.
Chris Sims agrees that "Living Construct" is a wholly unique keyword
that isn't to be broken down into two separate words ("Living,
Construct"). As such, he agrees that unless/until the definitions of
Living Construct includes wording to make them constructs in regards
to powers/effects they don't get those powers/effects. (IE - no
reparation apparatus).
Chris Tulach mentioned that he and Mike Mearls re-discussed the issue
with the rules in front of them the night before, and they both
agreed (when looking at the rules more closely) that a Living
Construct is, indeed, a separate entity as well.
In short? Mike wasn't fully prepared to answer the question when
I "sprung" it on him - and now appears to be reconsidering his
opinion.
At this point it looks like the general (and yes, still unofficial)
consensus is that Reparition Apparatus (and other "Construct" related
effects) do nothing to a Warforged.
My apologies for further muddying the waters, but hopefully the (now)
unanimous opinion of 3 Rules Update Team members will help further
sway opinions.
(and better still, here's hoping the Rules Update team includes
language to fully silence the issue - IE "living constructs are not
considered constructs, blah blah blah." I suspect, however, they may
not as Chris Sims, at least, seems to be of the opinion that people
shouldn't look for rules/interpratations that aren't there. IE - if
it doesn't define you as a construct, you shouldn't assume you're a
construct.)
__________________
RPGA Forum Senior VCL
DDI Forum News Guide
