Community

I didn't say daze wasn't restrictive, I said the language being used isn't the same langauge as what's in the book. And that the language being used was coming across as a way to try and change what is in the book.

In fact, rather then say you can't do, the first line in Daze's description is what you can do. It says you can take either (not only, either) a standard, move or minor action on your turn. (you can also take free actions).

They don't say only, they don't say you are restricted. The specific rule is modifying the general rule.

And they point out you can take free actions.

So I think it's pretty clear that while they don't specificaly says, and if that free action is to spend an action point you get to take that extra action.

And my experience is that when someone has to go to such length, and change the wording, in what they say is an attempt to clarify something, they are really just trying to twist (Some times on purpose, sometimes without realizing it) the words to get what they want.

But again, you aren't going to get a different answer.

I think it's pretty clear, reading the rules only you get to use the extra action you get from an action point when you are dazed.

Apr 8, 2010 -- 5:33AM, dslatimore wrote:

Apr 8, 2010 -- 4:10AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

I didn't say daze wasn't restrictive, I said the language being used isn't the same langauge as what's in the book. And that the language being used was coming across as a way to try and change what is in the book.

In fact, rather then say you can't do, the first line in Daze's description is what you can do. It says you can take either (not only, either) a standard, move or minor action on your turn. (you can also take free actions).

They don't say only, they don't say you are restricted. The specific rule is modifying the general rule.

And they point out you can take free actions.

So I think it's pretty clear that while they don't specificaly says, and if that free action is to spend an action point you get to take that extra action.

And my experience is that when someone has to go to such length, and change the wording, in what they say is an attempt to clarify something, they are really just trying to twist (Some times on purpose, sometimes without realizing it) the words to get what they want.

But again, you aren't going to get a different answer.

I think it's pretty clear, reading the rules only you get to use the extra action you get from an action point when you are dazed.

My question to CS back on page 23 seems touse the wording in the book, and I don't feel I was trying to get a particular answer (because I don't need to be right... in fact, I'm usually wrong).

I got the same answer Vel did, the AP rules are considered an exception to the dazed rules, not vice-versa.

Your question is pretty clear, and doens't leave anything out. Can I spend an action point while I am dazed? Answer yes.

Can I actually used that extra action when I'm dazed. Answer yes.

The longer question seems more focused on trying to convience me how they see the wording of the rules for dazed as meaning one thing. They really don't. Just because daze restricts the number of actions you can take on your turn, there is nothing that says another rule can't expand the number of actions you can take on your turn.

No where in the rules does it say that only one specific rule at a time can apply. And no where in the daze rules does it specifically say nothing can over ride the one action on your turn.