The issue is that the rules text in the book and the given example contradict one another. I definitely think this deserves an errata to make them consistent, but I don’t find fault with IJW’s reading of the rule.
All these are reasonable concerns, would it hurt to express them as like now without hyperboles and attacks on individuals? The answer is what it is, it is consistent with the rules, even though it goes against the example, if it gets errataed because the intention is otherwise, as was berserk, it will change when it gets in the FAQ.
I dunno, talk to @QueensGambit , who thought that it shouldn't even be addressed as an "answered question" in that thread. He was the one who snapped at me first.
This. Until there is errata, the main rules text MUST always take priority if there is a contradiction between the main rule text and an example.
And this is the answer @ijw gives, its not "Ijw's houserules" you have an official person tasked to give you rules answers according to the rules and this is what you get. I am not objecting in debating the answer as long as it is respectful towards all parties involved and constructed without going over the top and/ or insulting. And ultimately please understand that until overruled by @ijw himself or a FAQ, the answer is what rules say.
The main rules text is ambiguous on the topic, whereas the example is clear - and, as I've elucidated elsewhere, you've been fine with saying "this is the intent, play it this way" on other topics. Why not here?
No it isn't. See also the OP, who had already worked out that going straight to Dead without suffering any Wounds wouldn't work for Protheion.
It says that no saving throw is made, not that wounds are not suffered. Given the example, the implication is that the wound is inflicted automatically.
Given that the example in the book shows it working (copied verbatim from N3), I think it's safe to assume that most players who don't read these forums are going to assume that it works.
So in N3, Coup de Grace was its own action, and it put targets straight to dead. Protheion said it worked with Coup de Grace, despite not doing wounds, and everyone knew what it meant. Now, Coup de Grace is a special case of the CC Attack action, and Protheion works with CC Attack only - the same logic that allowed it to work in N3 should make it work in N4.
Sure, but Coup De Grace didn't cause saving throws either; the implication was that it still effectively inflicted wounds. N4 Protheion works with CDG since it's a subset of CC Attack.
Look. A) One of the guys who wrote the rules has said how the rules work and you're arguing that he's wrong. and B) That line of text is the only thing that could cause CDG to work with Protheion in N3 and it does not exist in N4, hence it has no bearing on N4, so: no.
You mean that rule that they changed the functionality of in the FAQ? Come on. Do you really expect someone to be precognisant like that? If you wanna discuss how the rules should work then discuss how they should work, but this line you're pursuing here is counter-productive
Technically he wasn't wrong, his temporary answer was a correct temporary answer that was superceded by a different, but also correct, new permanent answer. The joys of a fiat system.
