Ah, now that I know you're an elitist I shall read your posts accordingly.

I understand your point, but must add it seems strange to write a rule that is not very clear and then give an example of that rule that further muddies the waters. I accept in your world all the rules are clear and perfectly obvious.

Most 'normal' people would probably write the rule as follows..

"All Heroes may play one Feat card each per turn. This includes the Overlords turn."

No need for an example. Crystal clear. With the best will in the world, the way the current rule is written implies 1 feat per turn on your turn only, with a further 1 per hero on the Overlord's turn.

Anyway, I now fully understand the rule. Suffice to say it will be house ruled with immediate effect.

I'll try and post any other misunderstandings I have carefully disguised so it looks like I know what I'm talking about ( highly unlikely, I know).

No harm no foul guys I hope.

At no point in this exchange have I even mentioned any actual positions on the number of feat cards playable per round. I never said the rules were clear; I never even said you were wrong. Nor did I call you names or threaten to carry a grudge into other threads.

But I will do so now: if you knew the difference between a rule and an example, and yet you posted an argument based entirely on conflating the two, then you are a scoundrel and a charlatan and the forum is a worse place because you're here. I don't care whether the conclusion you were defending was right or wrong, plausible or ridiculous, because the argument itself is poison. I don't even particularly care whether you posted it out of malice or just some towering intellectual laziness; you have a moral and intellectual responsibility to do due dilligence on the arguments you make, which you jettisoned.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with how clear or confusing the rules were. I have not claimed they were clear, or that you were stupid for not understanding them, or even that you were wrong. That's not the point.

I have bent over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt, considering that ignorance was possible even if unlikely, and giving you multiple opportunities to explain yourself. So much so that you have apparently assumed it was a sarcastic farce (it wasn't). But if you insist on standing behind your post, then I am forced to conclude that its sins are deliberate.

Whoa.

I am genuinely sorry you feel that way.

I did believe I was right, yes that is correct. in your own inimitable style you proved I was wrong. I tried to humorously, and tongue in cheek a little, I guess, to bow to your superior knowledge. It may have come across as an intellectual exercise but I can assure you it wasn't.

Of course I'm not carrying over anything into other threads, etc, etc. I was just messing about, trying to lighten a mood that admittedly I had created myself. Partially because I realised I was wrong and was trying to back away graciously.

That all being said, I never intend sarcasm - just self deprecation - and you my friend have completely gone off one over this. If I can i will all posts I made about this issue. If I can't, then once again, I apologise. I don't want anyone to take what I post as offensive, lazy or anything negative.

I was wrong, you are right about the Feat cards.

I was also wrong to approach the subject in any manner that would have upset or confused someone so much.

Lesson learned believe me.

Khula, welcome to the forums.

Don't worry about Antistone's rant, while he is definitely one of the heavyweights when it comes to rules interpretations he can be somewhat abrasive from time to time. While it may be directed at you in response to something you may have written and while it may sound personal in my experience it never is.

khula said:

Unfortunately, the humour fell a long way flat since it followed, and followed up, the genuine insult and falsehood from James. The way you wrote it really did look like you took that view and would carry it over into other threads, even if you meant it as sarcasm.

I wouldn't worry about it at all.
Though being in the habit of adding remarks that defend a bad position after acknowledging a mistake doesn't help anyone.

Just carry on here as if nothing has happened. No one will hold anything against you if you post honest and reasonable posts.

What did I say that was false? If you're going to call me a liar, bring some proof. You and Antistone constantly berate people for making mistakes, and tear into anyone with the audacity to disbelieve your answers. But like I said, you're also useful, so we don't mind too much. We just have to warn the newbies to steel themselves against your inevitable rants.

James McMurray said:

i completely disagree. although some of their posts come off as harsh, it is sometimes needed. whether you are a first timer or have been frequenting these forums for months or years, people ask questions and these two are the backbone of rules as i see it. sometimes they don't agree on everything, but after reading their points, you can derive your own answer. both you (james) and steve-o i think have also been great contributors as well to this game as a whole.

there have been multiple times just this week, where corbon has said something regarding a ruling, someone else has disagreed and backed it up with the ruling and what it means to them and he has said, yep, you were right. elitist? i really don't think so.

reading posts on bgg and here, i really want to slap some people, but i give them usually the benefit of the doubt, because i am hoping they are new to the game and they come to a place like this or bgg for advice. myself, i want to play the game correctly, not how i interpret the rules.

for as much time as antistone and corbon spend in these forums, i really do value their opinion, but i do know that they are often times wrong. in a game like this where the rules are pretty much terribly written out, stuff like commas and use of adjectives and adverbs in a game that is played throughout the world in many different languages, i am glad we can have a place where we can talk about trying to play this game correctly.

whew, rant off. for all those who have use descentinthedark, please view this thread, as it will help possibly keep it up and updated.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/620333/descentinthedark-users-please-read-keep-it-going

I didn't say they never admit to being wrong. I said sometimes they're asshats. See, we're both right about them!

Antistone is a heavyweight in rules and the guy has definetely spend huge amounts of time in descent since he has also made enduring evil. Corbin is well.. Corbin. But yes i agree that both tend to become agitated and offensive if someone disagrees with them but that is not the rule though but sometimes they do overdo it.

Drglord said:

Corbon, not Corbin

-shnar

James McMurray said:

you said elitist, so that infers its my way or the highway obviously not the reason here for these two, but... yes, answering the same question over and over again especially about why can't i win an advanced campaign and i am a D&D'er and i think the rules should be xxx, please help save me from wasting $100+ for this game.

really if you read their posts, about at least 25% is doing this. taking a good 30 minutes of every day to do this.

i know you realize the time and effort of these two, and i think both you and i appreciate their help. i even appreciate your help james i think you are a great asset to this community.

me on the other hand, i am crotchety and i tell it how it is, i am over trying to sugar coat things.