Well, the reeeing when someone shared something off the WarCor forum tells me that there was something else going on there.
A fiat system is one thing. A fiat system with secret rulings (unintentional and rare or otherwise) is another. That's what the reeeing was about. As @colbrook points out, IJW ruled on what RAW said until an Errata made it clear what the intended interaction was.
He ruled the rule as it is written and this is the only answer you will get and made sure the issue was brought up in the rules team to be debated if it should be amended (and errataed) in the FAQ, he should and would not rule on what you think (correct or wrong) a rule should be, only what is written. And I am a firm believer in amending or rewriting rules only in the FAQ and not on the forum, facebook or any other medium that can be buried under over to insignificance in days, or sometimes minutes. So no he was not "wrong" in the past, you give him too little credit for the work he does maintaining the rules and helping issues that may rise be resolved in a proper manner.
If this is the official ruling for the time being it should be in one of the Provisional Rules Answer stickied threads, and then in the next faq. The rulebook contradicts itself and any sane person reading it would see the prothion example and think this is exactly how it is intended to be played, but if it’s not just do the temp answer and then faq it. Done. Like how hard is it to just say whoops you’re right the rulebook has an error, and we’re gonna address it in the next faq.
What official ruling? This isn't a ruling, this is just IJW confirming how the rules text work if you follow what's written. Yes, that does make a good candidate for an FAQ entry if it's asked a bunch, but considering what IJW has stated is his opinion on the matter I think it would be highly inappropriate and pre-mature to post a provisional answer when it's likely to be retracted.
The rulebook says two different things and IJW has ruled one is right and one is wrong. If you’re going to say part of the rulebook text is incorrect that seems exactly like what a faq/errata/provisional answer is for.
The text for Protheion in the rulebook says that you get power up from causing wounds.* The text for Monofilament in the rulebook says that you enter Dead state (without causing wounds). The text for Coup de Grace in the rulebook says that you enter Dead state (without causing wounds and without causing ARM/BTS rolls). The example for Protheion in the rulebook says that you get power up from Protheion. IJW advised us that entering a state isn't synonymous with causing wounds and as such the effects of Protheion can not be used. IJW also advised us that rules text trumps examples (in this edition), so the example of Protheion going mechanically against the text means the example which was lifted from N3 is faulty. IJW also brought up that he would like to see this be less janky and would be bringing it up for review (not an exact quote, of course) This is not a ruling as it doesn't change the meaning of the rules text, it is just a confirmation of what's actually written. * "For each Wound inflicted upon the target of the CC Attack..."
Rulebook says one ambiguous thing, as it doesn't say that wounds aren't lost, just that no armor saves are made, and one concrete thing.
I understand all that, but the example of prothion is part of the rulebook text and it is much clearer than the slightly convoluted way you you have to think to get to the “correct” answer. If you want to say the example is wrong that’s fine, but as it is the rulebook text still this needs to be addressed via faq/errata. This is exactly the same circumstances as the incorrect example in the dodge skill, which has an errata in the faq already. I don’t understand how it is so controversial to say that incorrect text in the rulebook requires a faq entry.
I guess at this point, @Hecaton, I’m not sure what your end-game is. You have an answer from an authoritative source; while it’s clear you’re not happy with it, what are you hoping to accomplish? Are you trying to change @ijw’s mind so that he’ll alter his answer? Maybe it’ll be addressed in a future FAQ. Maybe it’ll even be ruled to allow protheion to work with coup de grace. But that’s in the future, and threads like this aren’t generally effective at forcing changes like that.
It's not. That's been understood for pages. What's resulting in @Hecaton getting dogpiled is his refusal to accept the interim answer until the FAQ comes out and continuing to argue the point. If the next FAQ came out and he went "hey, this issue still only has a forum correction - can we get it in the next FAQ please" it wouldn't be an issue.
Can we please stop it and stop dogpiling @Hecaton The question was made, @ijw gave the answer @Hecaton raised his objection, I said what I had to say and the issue should be considered resolved. If it is considered important enouph to be further clarified, or to be changed, it will be addressed in the next FAQ.
