New Posts For Thread: So, ignoring CS on versatile weaponshttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22255161/So,_ignoring_CS_on_versatile_weaponsI can't believe the stupidity behind the ruling of versatile weapons only counting as 1 handed weapons.  It very clearly goes against both common sense and the designer's intent, and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain buGood catch.  It wasn't possible in a LFR or other game that required RAW.It's not about a desire to be awesome at RAW, it's about the need to know what RAW is.  Either because you area playing in a game that requires RAW rules, or because you wanthttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22255161/So,_ignoring_CS_on_versatile_weapons?post_id=389932297#389932297Good catch.  It wasn't possible in a LFR or other game that required RAW.It's not about a desire to be awesome at RAW, it's about the need to know what RAW is.  Either because you area playing in a game that requires RAW rules, or because you wantWed, 10 Feb 2010 14:59:22 -0600Errata isn't issued to clarify, it is issued to fix a problem.  It's where they put things when they *think* it is a rules change.  Before the errata, it wasn't possible to use Versatile weapons with Barbarian At-wills.  Now it is.If they had intehttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22255161/So,_ignoring_CS_on_versatile_weapons?post_id=389926053#389926053Errata isn't issued to clarify, it is issued to fix a problem.  It's where they put things when they *think* it is a rules change.  Before the errata, it wasn't possible to use Versatile weapons with Barbarian At-wills.  Now it is.If they had inteWed, 10 Feb 2010 13:56:41 -0600Errata isn't issued to clarify, it is issued to fix a problem.  It's where they put things when they *think* it is a rules change.  Before the errata, it wasn't possible to use Versatile weapons with Barbarian At-wills.  Now it is.If they had intehttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22255161/So,_ignoring_CS_on_versatile_weapons?post_id=389923817#389923817Errata isn't issued to clarify, it is issued to fix a problem.  It's where they put things when they *think* it is a rules change.  Before the errata, it wasn't possible to use Versatile weapons with Barbarian At-wills.  Now it is.If they had inteWed, 10 Feb 2010 13:32:40 -0600Precisely, it was likely meant as a clarification of the original intention, for those who couldn't read between the lines.  GFAW GFAW!!Exactly.On the Requirement line, replace “a two-handed weapon” with “a melee weapon in two hands.” This chttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22255161/So,_ignoring_CS_on_versatile_weapons?post_id=389922921#389922921Precisely, it was likely meant as a clarification of the original intention, for those who couldn't read between the lines.  GFAW GFAW!!Exactly.On the Requirement line, replace “a two-handed weapon” with “a melee weapon in two hands.” This cWed, 10 Feb 2010 13:22:58 -0600Precisely, it was likely a clarification of the original intention!http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22255161/So,_ignoring_CS_on_versatile_weapons?post_id=389911537#389911537Precisely, it was likely a clarification of the original intention!Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:29:45 -0600