Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Noctem" data-source="post: 6774741" data-attributes="member: 6801315">Ok here's the thing.&nbsp; I don't care how my posts make me look when it comes to most people.&nbsp; I just simply don't care.&nbsp; You and I seem to have the same opinions but I think it's simply a difference in caring about what others think of us.&nbsp; It's a difference in personality perhaps.&nbsp; What I do care about on the other hand is that if 3 pages ago someone linked the rules quote for something, spending time and effort to explain that rule, and now some bloke makes a claim that clearly goes against that rules quote; that they be immediately reminded about the rules quote and that it be respected.&nbsp; I've noticed that most of the people who opine don't seem to care about actually reading the rules for this game and are more than comfortable spewing their interpretations as rules mantra.&nbsp; When someone comes asking about the rules, your houserule is the last thing you should be answering with imo unless the question has been answered and/or you clearly label it as such.So I work to combat that spread.&nbsp; Arial Black's houserule about instantaneous spells shouldn't be submitted to answer a rules question but here we are. It's been debunked by dev tweet responses, rules quotes and that sort of thing.&nbsp; But he's stubborn.&nbsp; From his houserule, he's now spread it (with the help of others who have bought into his houserule) to include other game elements and how they interact with each other.&nbsp; Even though the duration clearly says it can't be dispelled, now there's talk about some kind of time between attacks that allows you to dispel.&nbsp; Needless to say, time between attacks like they are inventing doesn't exist.&nbsp; There's no such defined time in the rules of the game.&nbsp; But wait!&nbsp; The dictionary says something!&nbsp; Let me be clear, if you need to point to half a definition on a random dictionary website and you use that as the entire basis for your rules argument, you've lost from the get go.&nbsp; Essentially, they are going through the various rules that might cause problems and rewriting them (instantaneous can be dispelled, time between attacks exists, instantaneous = simultaneous, etc..) to fit into the houserule they invented to begin with.&nbsp; Like, it's nonsense and if my calling it out as such gets people to stop and think then that's good enough.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Noctem, post: 6774741, member: 6801315"] Ok here's the thing. I don't care how my posts make me look when it comes to most people. I just simply don't care. You and I seem to have the same opinions but I think it's simply a difference in caring about what others think of us. It's a difference in personality perhaps. What I do care about on the other hand is that if 3 pages ago someone linked the rules quote for something, spending time and effort to explain that rule, and now some bloke makes a claim that clearly goes against that rules quote; that they be immediately reminded about the rules quote and that it be respected. I've noticed that most of the people who opine don't seem to care about actually reading the rules for this game and are more than comfortable spewing their interpretations as rules mantra. When someone comes asking about the rules, your houserule is the last thing you should be answering with imo unless the question has been answered and/or you clearly label it as such. So I work to combat that spread. Arial Black's houserule about instantaneous spells shouldn't be submitted to answer a rules question but here we are. It's been debunked by dev tweet responses, rules quotes and that sort of thing. But he's stubborn. From his houserule, he's now spread it (with the help of others who have bought into his houserule) to include other game elements and how they interact with each other. Even though the duration clearly says it can't be dispelled, now there's talk about some kind of time between attacks that allows you to dispel. Needless to say, time between attacks like they are inventing doesn't exist. There's no such defined time in the rules of the game. But wait! The dictionary says something! Let me be clear, if you need to point to half a definition on a random dictionary website and you use that as the entire basis for your rules argument, you've lost from the get go. Essentially, they are going through the various rules that might cause problems and rewriting them (instantaneous can be dispelled, time between attacks exists, instantaneous = simultaneous, etc..) to fit into the houserule they invented to begin with. Like, it's nonsense and if my calling it out as such gets people to stop and think then that's good enough. [/QUOTE]

Verification