|
Post by skyth on Apr 8, 2008 15:12:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by adsvampire on Apr 8, 2008 16:21:11 GMT -5
That's not entirely true. The wording of the spell does not specifically state that you can cast invoc on engaged units but the spell's description does specify that you can ... or you can deliberately misread it as otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Apr 8, 2008 19:24:51 GMT -5
Hence the problem, Skyth. Lots of "evidence" that it probably can be cast into combat, but it never comes out and actually say it can. Every other spell in the game that can be cast into combat specifically states "may be cast into combat".
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Apr 8, 2008 19:27:35 GMT -5
I agree I don't play Vamps (And probably won't). Just I know about the debate, so I figured I'd bring in actual designer intent rather than supposed designer intent. How it's played doesn't really matter to me, just figured people would be interested in this tidbit.
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Apr 8, 2008 22:11:20 GMT -5
It sure seems odd to me that when they do such an aweful job with the rule they are awefully careful with the FAQ so much so that they take months to get out. Why can't they rush it out in the same sloppy fashion as the rule book and at least answer the big questions?
Boldo
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Apr 8, 2008 22:40:49 GMT -5
Or better yet, put a little more time into the books in the first place and avoid the big problems to begin with. It's kind of sad how many large problems they miss that the average gamer notices in one reading of the book. I realize there will always be a need for FAQs since you can't expect to forsee all the problems, but they have some glaringly bad editing. You think they would have noticed the poor wording on something like Invoke.
|
|