Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
    
 | | 05/29/2006 8:42 AM |
| First assume a Large creature with MR 2. It has one of its squares bordering a thin wall. On the other side of the wall, one space away from the wall and one space down from the wall's terminus, is a Medium opponent. It looks like this:
XX LL<br>XX|LL<br>MX|XX The question: Can the Large creature attack the Medium creature?
Relevant rules and notes:
(1) From Melee Reach in the Rulebook Glossary: "This creature can make melee attacks against enemies that are up to the listed number of squares away." Note that the Medium creature is 2 squares away.
(2) Same source: "Use the ranged attack rules to determine whether the attacker has line of sight to the target and whether the target has cover." Note that the Large creature has LOS and there is no cover.
(3) Note that there is no rule saying how you count the squares for Melee Reach (or ranged attacks, for that matter). It's just "[two] squares away." Only LOS is determined from intersections, not distance.
(4) Note the similarity to the recent Marut wierdness. From Guy's Official Clarifications: "Single-Minded: On its turn, this creature cannot move or attack a noncommander if an enemy commander is within its Melee Reach at the start of its turn. This does not apply if it does not have line of sight to any of the enemy commanders within its Melee Reach."
This ruling means that "Melee Reach" and "Line-of-Sight" are independent concepts ... it is entirely possible for a creature to be within "Melee Reach" while two squares away on the other side of a wall. (If it weren't possible, the final sentence of that ruling would be completely unnecessary, and, in fact, the final sentence of the Marut ruling is not only necessary, it's the entire point of the ruling.)
So, to review: the Large creature has LOS to the Medium creature. The Medium Creature is two squares away from the Large creature. Can the Large creature attack the Medium creature?
This came up in a tournament this weekend, and it was ruled that the Large creature could not attack the Medium creature, because -- counting from the LOS point -- the Medium creature is two diagonals away. The argument is that since Melee Reach is targeted like ranged combat, using a LOS intersection, the distance must be measured from the LOS intersection.
But (again to review) there's no rule saying you measure Melee Reach (or ranged attacks) from the LOS point, and the Marut ruling illustrates, in fact, that you do not measure Melee Reach in that way.
Are we missing anything? By the rules as written, why can't the Large creature with MR 2 attack the Medium creature? | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
muselindeman
Sneak
133 Posts
USA
| | 05/29/2006 8:47 AM |
| | I would have ruled as was stated. Please explain how you can measure from any point of the large creature to the med one and count less than 2 diagonals away. Are you implying that your creature can attack through walls? If so, there are many other examples that clearly show this is illeagle. | |
Larry Lindeman
trade refrences: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12442 | |
|
Eliminator53
Sergeant
628 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 8:50 AM |
| | I'm no expert but I would say no because the Medium creature is to far away to reach. He is actually 3 away. | |
Champion of Tavern Stripper
Knight of Knights
Squire of Death Giants
Somethin-or-another of Big Arse Swords | |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 8:55 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by muselindeman
Are you implying that your creature can attack through walls? If so, there are many other examples that clearly show this is illeagle.
No, I am implying -- actually, I'm simply stating -- that there is no rule saying that you can't measure Melee Reach through walls. And that, in fact, there is a recent ruling implying very strongly that you do measure Melee Reach as absolute distance. And, in the example shown, the Large is two squares away from the Medium. | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 8:56 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Eliminator53
I'm no expert but I would say no because the Medium creature is to far away to reach. He is actually 3 away.
No, he's not. He's two squares away. I don't know if the diagram is throwing you off (in which case you need to remember that the wall is thin), or if you're counting around the wall (which, as far as I can find, is not how Melee Reach is counted). | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
BakS
Sneak
50 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 8:57 AM |
| Eliminator53 is correct :)
Distance count from the upper point of the thin wall, and it is actually 3 squares away | |
My Have/want list
http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=BakS | |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| |
Eliminator53
Sergeant
628 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:07 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Wayne
quote:
Originally posted by Eliminator53
I'm no expert but I would say no because the Medium creature is to far away to reach. He is actually 3 away.
No, he's not. He's two squares away. I don't know if the diagram is throwing you off (in which case you need to remember that the wall is thin), or if you're counting around the wall (which, as far as I can find, is not how Melee Reach is counted).
Where are you counting from? From where the large creature can see from (the closest square) the medium is three away still from that corner.
Edit: Every other diagonal in the DDM game is counted as two so from the reach it is 1 and then 2,3. So he is in fact three squares away. Does that kinda clear things up? | |
Champion of Tavern Stripper
Knight of Knights
Squire of Death Giants
Somethin-or-another of Big Arse Swords | |
|
Temysry
Sergeant
512 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:11 AM |
| Wayne - you are absolutely correct.
When the ruling came down about Marut, the clarification stated that being within Melee reach had nothing to do with interposing walls. They fixed the Marut problem by saying it also needed LOS.
Your example shows that this is still not sufficient. In fact, we can construct even worse examples which clearly shouldn't work but would satisfy the rules as they are currently worded.
XX XX
XX|LL
XX|LL
XX|XX
XM|XX
Given that it is a thin wall, we can still use the intersection at the top of the wall to get LOS and the medium creature is within melee reach of the large creature.
Perhaps if this problem was pointed out earlier, they could have simply made a clarification to melee reach that would have also fixed the Marut problem.
I look forward to what Guy might have to say about this. | |
A Proud Gelatinous Dude
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:15 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Eliminator53
Where are you counting from? From where the large creature can see from (the closest square) the medium is three away still from that corner.
Ah, but that's the point.
"From where the Large creature can see" is not how you measure Melee Reach. You measure Melee Reach by how far apart the two pieces are, period ... and in this case that's two squares. | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
muselindeman
Sneak
133 Posts
USA
| | 05/29/2006 9:19 AM |
| I looked up Guys rules page and the large figure CAN (it seems to me) measure through walls. look at what I put in bold and go to Guy's rule page and look at the example. He specificcally states the Minotaur can measure reach through the wall. Ignore the fact that this deals w/ cover. I know that is not the point, but the example sems to work for Wayne's question. Sorry Wayne, I spoke prior to looking up the rule. This seems really counter-intuitive. I HATE RULES THAT MAKE NO SENSE!!!
http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DDM/CoverVsMeleeReach.html
Scenario D: Does the Dwarf have cover versus the Minotaur when a wall is in the way?
Yes. Regardless of which corner the Minotaur chooses, it cannot trace a line from the chosen corner to all parts of the Dwarf's space without crossing the wall. Therefore, the Dwarf has cover versus the Minotaur's melee attack.
This is really the same situation as Scenario B. Walls provide cover versus Melee Reach attacks the same way creatures and statues do.
The Minotaur isn't limited to choosing its bottom-right corner:
Even though there is obviously a wall in the way of its top-right or middle-right corners, the Minotaur could still choose to use either one of those corners (or any other corner in its space for that matter) if it wanted to. It doesn't help in this situation, though. Choosing either of those other corners still provides the Dwarf with cover
| |
Larry Lindeman
trade refrences: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12442 | |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:23 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Temysry
XX XX
XX|LL
XX|LL
XX|XX
XM|XX
Given that it is a thin wall, we can still use the intersection at the top of the wall to get LOS and the medium creature is within melee reach of the large creature.
That's true, but this could be viewed as a LOS problem, rather than a MR problem. It's true that they could fix it by redefining MR, but they could just as easily fix it by tweaking LOS.
It's also different in that the above example is clearly absurd, but the original example isn't. (The original example is a corner case, so to speak, but it wouldn't be absurd to simply stick to the rules as written and allow it. It would kinda make up for the ridiculous "creatures with MR get screwed by Large creatures with one toe in Forest" rule.) | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
Myth Master Jr
Sergeant
418 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:26 AM |
| | I see your point, but it seems wrong. You may be able to see, and be only two squares away counting through the wall, but your creature would definately have to attack through the wall to hit. If this is legal, then the game is screwed. Thats just cheesy. | |
Trade References||60 Trades Completed||Louisville Gaming Society||LGS Forums||Trade With Me
Steven C Johnson, LGS Administrator
All Gamers of Any Sort are Welcomed!
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:31 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Myth Master Jr
Thats just cheesy.
Again, it's much less cheesy than the ruling that says a Large creature with one square in Forest gets cover against anybody with MR, but not against anybody without MR.That is one silly rule. At least this one you can rationalize with "okay, he's got really long arms" or something. | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
BigGeorge
Sneak
73 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:34 AM |
| I seem to have misplaced my rule book, but i do know this:
1. You may NEVER count THROUGH a wall for LOS purposes.
2. When counting distance ALWAYS count the second diagnal as TWO squares
I think if i could back that up on paper it would clear this up. well, maybe the all powerful lord and master of the minis realm, ascendant of the third ring of the plastic demi plane, Destroyer of dice wilting BadRollBeast(CR31!!) The great, mighty, and All knowing GUY FULLERTON will clear this up for you.
*holds up the big G symbol in the sky* | |
| |
|
Temysry
Sergeant
512 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:35 AM |
| | Well - with respect to the forest problem, Guy has already ruled that you can choose not to use MR if you want. Therefore, when a large creature with "a toe" in the forest is based by a creature with MR, it does not get the cover bonus. It only applies when he is forced to use MR. This at least makes it a little better. | |
A Proud Gelatinous Dude
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10445 Posts
United States
| | 05/29/2006 9:35 AM |
| From Guy's Clarifications:
Determining Distances of Effects
(01/09/05) Q. When determining a distance to/from a large or huge creature, which of the creature's squares do you count to/from?
A. You can start counting from any square and you can count to any square, but you must always count around walls appropriately (depending on the reason you are counting) from and to the chosen squares.My own guess is that Guy is going to rule that counting through the wall is not an appropriately counted measurement and that the target in Wayne's example is 3 squares away.
But, I agree with Wayne that it's not crystal clear that this is the case.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Temysry
Sergeant
512 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:37 AM |
| | BigGeorge - at no point have we counted LOS through walls and we have always counted two digonals as being 3 squares. That's not really what's at issue here. | |
A Proud Gelatinous Dude
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
Myth Master Jr
Sergeant
418 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:38 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Wayne
Again, it's much less cheesy than the ruling that says a Large creature with one square in Forest gets cover against anybody with MR, but not against anybody without MR.That is one silly rule. At least this one you can rationalize with "okay, he's got really long arms" or something.
Hey, you'll get no complaints here. That map needs to be burned and sent back were it came from. Any battlemap that requires that many special rules shouldn't be in use unless the rules are clearly outlined on the map.
Big George, He's not counting lLOS through the wall, he's counting from the top of the wall where his creature can see around. LOS IS established, which now puts his creature into MR2 through the wall, as is apparently allowed by some ruling on the Marut. | |
Trade References||60 Trades Completed||Louisville Gaming Society||LGS Forums||Trade With Me
Steven C Johnson, LGS Administrator
All Gamers of Any Sort are Welcomed!
| |
|
Temysry
Sergeant
512 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:40 AM |
| Dave, that does seem like the best way to resolve the problem. Of course, why didn't they just refer to this rule when we had those problems with the Marut? It would have fixed his Singlemindedness problem without any additional clarification.
Just a thought. | |
A Proud Gelatinous Dude
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:43 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by BigGeorge
1. You may NEVER count THROUGH a wall for LOS purposes.
Nobody is doing so.
quote:
2. When counting distance ALWAYS count the second diagnal as TWO squares
Yes, but you don't count distance from intersections. You count squares. (Look at the diagram on page 10 of the rulebook, for one. It's not counting distance in intersections ... it's doing so in squares. There's only one place I know of in the entire game where distance is measured from an intersection: cones and lines.)
The Large is one straight square and then one diagonal square away from the Medium.
So, to re-review: The Large has LOS to the Medium. The Medium is within the Large's two-square MR. Why can't the Large attack? | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:48 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
quote:
A. You can start counting from any square and you can count to any square, but you must always count around walls appropriately (depending on the reason you are counting) from and to the chosen squares.
My own guess is that Guy is going to rule that counting through the wall is not an appropriately counted measurement and that the target in Wayne's example is 3 squares away.
He might. It'd be better if they just fixed the rules, though. (Or left them alone.) It would also kinda make me wonder why Guy would ever think a Commander could "freeze" a Marut through a wall. (We discussed it back when the Marut weirdness was happening.) | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:50 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Temysry
Well - with respect to the forest problem, Guy has already ruled that you can choose not to use MR if you want.
I didn't know that. That does make it (a little) better. Thanks. | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:52 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Temysry
Dave, that does seem like the best way to resolve the problem. Of course, why didn't they just refer to this rule when we had those problems with the Marut? It would have fixed his Singlemindedness problem without any additional clarification.
Well, not in non-wall LOS situations, like Forest. (I was gonna say Smoke, but of course that's not a LOS problem for the Marut.) | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
BigGeorge
Sneak
73 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:52 AM |
| I'm sorry guys but what i see from the diagram is a large creature, three squares away from the medium creature. i believe it is true that you count from squares, not intersections, i just believe the problem lies in WHICH square you start from, and i believe the starting square lies Inside of the attacking Mini, not an adjacent square too it. Maybe i'm too tired to be talking about minis rules.
Please dis-regard everything i say, i'm very tired. | |
| |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 10:12 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by muselindeman
http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DDM/CoverVsMeleeReach.html
BTW, take a look at Scenario E on this page. Note the corner the Minotaur has to use for LOS. Now note the relative position of the Dwarf to that LOS corner. Now compare that to the relative position of the Medium to the LOS intersection in the original post in this thread. They're the same distance. (IMO this is irrelevant, but several folks seem to be getting hung up on counting distance from the LOS point.) | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
Eliminator53
Sergeant
628 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 10:57 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Wayne
quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
quote:
A. You can start counting from any square and you can count to any square, but you must always count around walls appropriately (depending on the reason you are counting) from and to the chosen squares.
My own guess is that Guy is going to rule that counting through the wall is not an appropriately counted measurement and that the target in Wayne's example is 3 squares away.
He might. It'd be better if they just fixed the rules, though. (Or left them alone.) It would also kinda make me wonder why Guy would ever think a Commander could "freeze" a Marut through a wall. (We discussed it back when the Marut weirdness was happening.)
I do see what you meant now. Because he has LOS from that square, you could technically count from the bottom part of the square to get two squares away. Makes sense now. I do have to agree w/ V though and say that Guy will probably rule it that you have to start from the top of the wall. | |
Champion of Tavern Stripper
Knight of Knights
Squire of Death Giants
Somethin-or-another of Big Arse Swords | |
|
The Great
Choco Monster
Ghendar
Warlord
12441 Posts
The G Spot
| | 05/29/2006 11:51 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Wayne
quote:
Originally posted by Myth Master Jr
Thats just cheesy.
Again, it's much less cheesy than the ruling that says a Large creature with one square in Forest gets cover against anybody with MR, but not against anybody without MR.That is one silly rule. At least this one you can rationalize with "okay, he's got really long arms" or something.
Yeah, those forest cover rules are pretty wonky. I love that map but those rules? [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] | |
WotC - making me wish more and more every day for a return to the TSR days. :(
I fought the snark and the snark won. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack!
Some of my favorite Maxminis quotes
I actually love to be swallowed. - Posted By gss_000 on 09/04/2007 2:32 PM
Could somebody explain Snatch to me? I understand the basics, but not how to enter/use it. - Posted by orcmonk220
G's the man. - Posted By greyhaze on 11/11/2008 8:58 AM | |
|
Wish
Sergeant
399 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 11:59 AM |
| "A. You can start counting from any square and you can count to any square, but you must always count around walls appropriately (depending on the reason you are counting) from and to the chosen squares."
That ruling clears up this situation. The medium creature is in LOS for the large creature but is not, in fact, within two squares. If the wall weren't there, it would be only two squares away from the large creature, but because of the quoted ruling the large creature must count around the wall to determine distance. So the bottom left square of the large creature is actually 4 squares away from the medium creature, and the top left square is 3 squares away (two diagonals). Thus no attacks using melee reach are possible. | | | |
|
Korvax
Warrior
263 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 12:09 PM |
| To illustrate the distance calculation as per Wayne and Temysry's examples :
XX LL
XX|LL
MX|XX
XX LL
X1|0L
21|XX
XX XX
XX|LL
XX|LL
XX|XX
XM|XX
XX XX
XX|LL
XX|0L
X1|1X
X2|XX
| |
Champion of the Phoenix!
"By the leaking snot of Skurmsh[!]" - Teflon Jeff | |
|
XenoZephyr
Underboss
1083 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 12:15 PM |
| Break the Large creature into 4 separate Medium creatures and can any of them attack the medium creature on the other side of the wall? No.
If you want Guy's Clarification on a rule, he's asked that you ask on the Wotc site and not here. | |
| |
|
D&D Miniatures
Guru
guyf
Sergeant
545 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 12:34 PM |
| | Reminder: I don't answer rules questions here (or over email for that matter). I answer rules questions on the WotC message boards. | |
-
Guy Fullerton
Official D&D Miniatures Net Rep | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10445 Posts
United States
| | 05/29/2006 2:23 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by guyf
Reminder: I don't answer rules questions here (or over email for that matter). I answer rules questions on the WotC message boards.
We're playing the "what if Guy were to rule on this" game here, it's a lot of fun.
[)]
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Eliminator53
Sergeant
628 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 3:19 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
quote:
Originally posted by guyf
Reminder: I don't answer rules questions here (or over email for that matter). I answer rules questions on the WotC message boards.
We're playing the "what if Guy were to rule on this" game here, it's a lot of fun.
[)]
Dave
Who's winning because I can't acces the wizards boards from here? | |
Champion of Tavern Stripper
Knight of Knights
Squire of Death Giants
Somethin-or-another of Big Arse Swords | |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| |
Incarnum
Sneak
81 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 8:50 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Wayne
Well, I don't post on the Wizards boards, so if anybody poses the question there and gets an answer, please post the answer back here.
Oh that is rich, I thought I was the only Maxminis member that didn't. | |
About the Poster:
Incarnum is a dedicated player of Dungeons and Dragons RPG/Minis. And is the loving father of "way too many" children. He's also helped many new players learn D&D. He has been playing Dungeons and Dragons RPG since 1978 and the Miniatures game since the beginning.
Proud member of team: "Who cares what damn team I am a member of"
| |
|
Incarnum
Sneak
81 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 8:58 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by guyf
Reminder: I don't answer rules questions here (or over email for that matter). I answer rules questions on the WotC message boards.
Why because we aren't good enough? If not bring your hall of shame over to WOTC. They are used to disrespecting others there.
Yes, by pointing out posters wrong terminology can be seen as disrespectful when you put them in a "hall of shame"
Maybe there should be a bad grammer etc. hall of shame, you would be inducted every time you posted. guyf should be GuyF. | |
About the Poster:
Incarnum is a dedicated player of Dungeons and Dragons RPG/Minis. And is the loving father of "way too many" children. He's also helped many new players learn D&D. He has been playing Dungeons and Dragons RPG since 1978 and the Miniatures game since the beginning.
Proud member of team: "Who cares what damn team I am a member of"
| |
|
Bert the Troll
Commander
3964 Posts
Adelaide
| | 05/29/2006 9:10 PM |
| Okay, here is your wiz thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9275421
You may want to check on questions about it - wiz boards dont require sign up to look at threads, only to post. | |
"Mutton yesterday, mutton today, and blimey, if it don't look like mutton again tomorrer." Bert the Troll - The Hobbit
Semi-Secret sig business: "In the age of the internet attaching a famous name to your personal opinion to give more weight to it is a very valid strategy." - Benjamin Franklin
Champion of Epic Lolth, Orcus, & Demogorgon and bring us Asmodeus! | |
|
eMpTy Kay
Underboss
1068 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:13 PM |
| I believe the ruling would be that the large can not attack the meidum creature with Melee reach 2 because it says in the rules for melee Reach to use the ranged attack rules to determine wheather the attack has LOS to the target an wheather the target had cover. The ranged rules would say you start at the corner, so the range would be three.
Just my penny & a half before Guy answers the Wizard thread. | |
| |
|
Korvax
Warrior
263 Posts
| | 05/29/2006 9:16 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Incarnum
quote:
Originally posted by guyf
Reminder: I don't answer rules questions here (or over email for that matter). I answer rules questions on the WotC message boards.
Why because we aren't good enough? If not bring your hall of shame over to WOTC. They are used to disrespecting others there.
Yes, by pointing out posters wrong terminology can be seen as disrespectful when you put them in a "hall of shame"
Maybe there should be a bad grammer etc. hall of shame, you would be inducted every time you posted. guy should be GUY.
regarding his not posting here : it's probably because he's contractually obligated not to (he is hired by WotC after all)
regarding the hall of shame : clicky clicky
edit: spelling | |
Champion of the Phoenix!
"By the leaking snot of Skurmsh[!]" - Teflon Jeff | |
|