4 minutes ago, SloaneKettering said:That isn't the part that you quoted though, so no, that wasn't the part I was addressing. It also isn't an accusation though, its a fact of history, because he clearly and explicitly tried to do exactly that in this thread and with the ruling itself. Do you not agree that the RAI over RAW interpretation of Sloane is a nerf or what? He said it was, explaining that she was undercosted otherwise and implying, despite an NDA, that he had insider information that this is what FFG actually wanted to happen.
I had quoted that earlier. Have you posted so many inane things today that you're having trouble remembering? No I don't think RAI vs.RAW is a nerf, I'm perfectly capable of playing either way and commend Q for letting trying to let me know which one it was. Q made a judgement call it's what judges do. If you want to keep hurling accusations of collusion with his "bros" then provide proof and I'll shut the **** up. If you can't provide proof then you're just talking out your a** aren't you.
