|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 12:57PM
#201
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2009
|
Basically you can move twice, attack twice, move and attack, etc; so long as you are still following the Dazed rules.
Isn't this the part where we start arguing about what this sentence means? :D
Edit: To clarify, don't the Dazed rules state you can take a move action, a standard action, or a minor action on your turn? Or is Jamie referring to the other Dazed rules?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 1:05PM
#202
|
|
|
Basically you can move twice, attack twice, move and attack, etc; so long as you are still following the Dazed rules.
Isn't this the part where we start arguing about what this sentence means? :D
Edit: To clarify, don't the Dazed rules state you can take a move action, a standard action, or a minor action on your turn? Or is Jamie referring to the other Dazed rules?
No, this is the part where we argue about why Customer Service are unreliable and wrong, to the point where the existence of a Customer Service answer that *agrees with me* (like this one) is enough to make me question what I've missed.
Like I said before: Every single person who has posted to this thread NEEDS to open a CustServ case and include a link to the FAQ and to this thread, if we're ever going to get an official clarification.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 2:02PM
#203
|
|
|
Basically you can move twice, attack twice, move and attack, etc; so long as you are still following the Dazed rules.
Isn't this the part where we start arguing about what this sentence means? :D
Edit: To clarify, don't the Dazed rules state you can take a move action, a standard action, or a minor action on your turn? Or is Jamie referring to the other Dazed rules?
No, this is the part where we argue about why Customer Service are unreliable and wrong, to the point where the existence of a Customer Service answer that *agrees with me* (like this one) is enough to make me question what I've missed.
Like I said before: Every single person who has posted to this thread NEEDS to open a CustServ case and include a link to the FAQ and to this thread, if we're ever going to get an official clarification.
we could, but we would get serval differnt answers
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 2:03PM
#204
|
|
|
Basically you can move twice, attack twice, move and attack, etc; so long as you are still following the Dazed rules.
Isn't this the part where we start arguing about what this sentence means? :D
Edit: To clarify, don't the Dazed rules state you can take a move action, a standard action, or a minor action on your turn? Or is Jamie referring to the other Dazed rules?
wow I didn't even realise that they answered like that. They didn't clarify what the daze rule was
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 2:05PM
#205
|
|
|
Basically you can move twice, attack twice, move and attack, etc; so long as you are still following the Dazed rules.
Isn't this the part where we start arguing about what this sentence means? :D
Edit: To clarify, don't the Dazed rules state you can take a move action, a standard action, or a minor action on your turn? Or is Jamie referring to the other Dazed rules?
wow I didn't even realise that they answered like that. They didn't clarify what the daze rule was
Read their whole reply, not just the fragment in your post:
#192
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 2:06PM
#206
|
|
|
we could, but we would get serval differnt answers
Yes! This is the point! Ask, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, pointing out in a reply EVERY SINGLE TIME why the responder is wrong according to the opposing RAW position. If they switch to agree with you, *change sides again*.
Make the issue *annoying* to them. Ask it SO MANY TIMES that the FAQ entry gets a one-sentence update, one way or the other. I honestly don't even care which - I run it as AP supercedes Daze and will continue to do so regardless of whether the end result is "John's rule is RAW" or "John's rule is a house rule".
In the mean time, both sides have an argument according to RAW, but the argument has been going for TWO YEARS and it BOTHERS ME. So instead of arguing it, endless, again, here, shift the burden onto WotC until one person spends 3 minutes updating one sentence on one web page and ENDS THE ARGUMENT FOREVER.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 2:26PM
#207
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2009
|
Basically you can move twice, attack twice, move and attack, etc; so long as you are still following the Dazed rules.
Isn't this the part where we start arguing about what this sentence means? :D
Edit: To clarify, don't the Dazed rules state you can take a move action, a standard action, or a minor action on your turn? Or is Jamie referring to the other Dazed rules?
wow I didn't even realise that they answered like that. They didn't clarify what the daze rule was
Read their whole reply, not just the fragment in your post:
#192
I agree that Jamie's intent was to say yes, you could use 2 actions while dazed if you spend an AP. I still think Jamie's wording could have been clearer and the fact that it isn't clearer makes the issue worse instead of better, since wording is what this argument is all about. (run-on sentence go)
Side note: Curse Jamie for having a gender-neutral name, preventing me from using pronouns in reference to Jamie.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 2:26PM
#208
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2009
|
we could, but we would get serval differnt answers
Yes! This is the point! Ask, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, pointing out in a reply EVERY SINGLE TIME why the responder is wrong according to the opposing RAW position. If they switch to agree with you, *change sides again*.
Make the issue *annoying* to them. Ask it SO MANY TIMES that the FAQ entry gets a one-sentence update, one way or the other. I honestly don't even care which - I run it as AP supercedes Daze and will continue to do so regardless of whether the end result is "John's rule is RAW" or "John's rule is a house rule".
In the mean time, both sides have an argument according to RAW, but the argument has been going for TWO YEARS and it BOTHERS ME. So instead of arguing it, endless, again, here, shift the burden onto WotC until one person spends 3 minutes updating one sentence on one web page and ENDS THE ARGUMENT FOREVER.
How does one submit a question to CS? Edit: Figured it out and sent the question.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 6:05PM
#209
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
|
LOL...yes I noticed all YOUR snipe in it....
Exactly...That's all I've got left... No more...
Edit: Artoomis?... is it over...
I guess so. We do have an official answer, even if some will refuse to admit/accept it. I would be surprised to see any further clarification as it is really pretty obvious. The concept of getting to use an Action Point and yet not be able to take the extra action is pretty bizarre.
LOL...official..I guess technically..but we all know their unpredictable pattern of correctness...and I am not trying to shoot down what we all knew would happen sooner or later, CS would give an answer like that...but like I said, we need that in errata.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 6:45PM
#210
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
LOL...yes I noticed all YOUR snipe in it....
Exactly...That's all I've got left... No more...
Edit: Artoomis?... is it over...
I guess so. We do have an official answer, even if some will refuse to admit/accept it. I would be surprised to see any further clarification as it is really pretty obvious. The concept of getting to use an Action Point and yet not be able to take the extra action is pretty bizarre.
LOL...official..I guess technically..but we all know their unpredictable pattern of correctness...and I am not trying to shoot down what we all knew would happen sooner or later, CS would give an answer like that...but like I said, we need that in errata.
I suppose an updated FAQ entry wouldn't hurt anything but I don't expect to see it. Does anyone seriously expect WotC to say it's possible to use an Action Point and then not be entitled to the gained action (unless a power is very specific about not using the action to gain some effect or other)? Really? Honestly?
|
|
|
