I agree. The rules are good enough that rewriting core mechanics shouldn't be necessary (unless they want to for Reasons). I just hope enough people buy the books for it to be financially sound thing to do, because it would take a lot of resources who have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed.
As long as any new edition or revision moves away from printed books. In this day and age there's not much reason to avoid the flexibility an online version would provide for an ever evolving game.
The idea of thinking about the concept of a living rulebook has been recently mentioned in some seminar, no more details except that.
Again, @Ginrei , by your reading of Dodge, you can never declare Dodge in ARO because you don't know if your Dodge declaration will be a FtF roll until AFTER AROs are declared. You seem to be the only person on the forum with this problem. Ever. I have been on the various CB forums since about 2006, and I have NEVER seen someone else have trouble with this. And again, the difference between N1 and N2 is the size of the current FAQ. N2 was almost entirely "N1 with the FAQ incorporated into the printed rules text," I only remember one major change/errata (Dispersion distance changed enough that missing by a single Failure Category would get the blast template off your base) as opposed to a clarification off the top of my head.
The one thing I'd caution is that it inhibits people's ability to learn the rules by sitting down and reading a rulebook. As long as the rules exist in a regularly-updated pdf somewhere with a changelog, that's a good thing.
Strongly disagree! There are a large number of things that were rewritten between editions. The high level edition change summary doc is just that - a summary. The core concept of the game remained the same, but I feel like you’re glossing over an awful lot of details.
When you say, "by your reading", whatever comes next is absolutely irrelevant IF my reading is correct. If I'm correct and the rule produces an outcome not intended or unplayable, the RAW is at fault, not my reading. You can't defend a rule by claiming any unintended or unplayable outcomes prove the reading to be incorrect. With that out of the way, lets move on to your claim about my reading. I've stated I believe FTF and Normal rolls are not skill/effect requirements. The only time I've discussed Dodge itself as having a FTF roll requirement was in response to claims the effect of evading attacks required a FTF. I was basically doing what you just tried to, which is show how their claim broke other things. To be fair, Dodge basically works focusing on FTF situations. Because Template weapons provide their own rules on how to Dodge them as a Normal roll. Berserk created another situation and didn't provide the instructions on how to handle that interaction.
Is the outcome of the explaination you have been given not intended ? It has been played like this for years without any correction from CB so I would guess it's played intended Is it unplaybable ? Hardly Is the understanding of the interaction subject to debate ? Everyone without exception gave you the same answer, dodge doesn't allow you to avoid damage from a berserk CC attack, The RAI of the berserk skill are clear enough that there never had any doubt regarding berserk interacting with any action/ARO
The statement in bold is not clear. I can't tell if you're answering your own question with a NO, by stating everyone without exception has said as much. We just keep going in circles. Telling me the intended way to play doesn't change what the RAW mean. Telling me everyone agrees on the intent and plays correctly doesn't change the RAW either. Nor does it prove the RAW are fine. How can I make those statements clear to you? Take this as an example: A statement is written saying 2+2=5 Everyone plays it as 2+2=4 One person doesn't fall in line. The writers say the intent was to say 2+2=4 That does not validate the original statement as written correctly. (It's not a case of, it's so obvious 2+2 in fact equals 4, so the rule is just fine.) I made a long post recently where I agreed with many of your statements. If you have anything to add to that, or points to refute, I'll hear them. Otherwise at this stage, I'll echo @psychoticstorm, I've made my point, there's nothing else to say.
I find arguments about RAW mostly hilarious. The premise that English can only be read in one,. Objectively correct way is so laughable that it should be a meme.
The reason lawyers make so much money is that there are, in fact, multiple readings. I've read and understood Ginrei's argument for how to interpret it, and I think that it is incorrect. I have nothing new to add to the conversation, however, as the (to me) obviously correct reading has already been explained numerous times.
Have any of those explanations shown how the rules tell us Berserk Attack's effect to turn the roll into a normal only works on one of Dodges effects and not all of them? Doesn't this point prove those explanations to be incorrect?
That's the first time he's commented on this subject. He's backing one side as obviously correct. To do that surely he can answer that question.
