Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6772858" data-attributes="member: 6799649">The problem with your question is that it hides the very issue we want him to answer. My question is complex in order to clearly lay out what the question is about: the game implications of the 'instantaneous' duration, which would be true whether or not redundant words appear in the description of certain spells.Your question can result in a list of spells which include the words 'simultaneous attacks', but ignore those occasions where 'simultaneous' is simply a consequence of 'instantaneous' and therefore is assumed in every single spell with the instantaneous duration. If JC answered either 'yes' or 'no', that would still leave the main question unanswered.In contrast, my question cannot be answered with yes/no, meaning he has to explain what's going on with the 'instantaneous' duration and its implications for game play.The point of asking the question would be to get a useful answer, one that leaves us thinking 'Oh, so that's how he intends it to work!', leaving us to use his ruling or not in our own games. If the answer just leaves us thinking 'What does he mean by that?', or 'that doesn't really answer the underlying question about the implications of instantaneous durations' then it wasn't a good question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 6772858, member: 6799649"] The problem with your question is that it hides the very issue we want him to answer. My question is complex in order to clearly lay out what the question is about: the game implications of the 'instantaneous' duration, which would be true whether or not redundant words appear in the description of certain spells. Your question can result in a list of spells which include the words 'simultaneous attacks', but ignore those occasions where 'simultaneous' is simply a consequence of 'instantaneous' and therefore is assumed in every single spell with the instantaneous duration. If JC answered either 'yes' or 'no', that would still leave the main question unanswered. In contrast, my question cannot be answered with yes/no, meaning he has to explain what's going on with the 'instantaneous' duration and its implications for game play. The point of asking the question would be to get a useful answer, one that leaves us thinking 'Oh, so that's how he intends it to work!', leaving us to use his ruling or not in our own games. If the answer just leaves us thinking 'What does he mean by that?', or 'that doesn't really answer the underlying question about the implications of instantaneous durations' then it wasn't a good question. [/QUOTE]

Verification