Reply: King of Tokyo:: Rules:: Re: Order of operations

by ras2124

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I was being facetious, but...

Something can be:

1. Consistent, and unambiguous.
2. Inconsistent, but unambiguous.
3. Ambiguous, but consistent.
4. Ambiguous, and inconsistent.

Now...

The ideal would be for the rules to be the first, but either of the second or the third are ok, and the fourth is the least desirable.

The rules as written were merely ambiguous.
They're now ambiguous and inconsistent.

First off, of course errata will contradict the original. It is ERRATA, dumbass. People (like you) were getting the wrong impression from the rules as written so they changed them. Since your interpretation was incorrect to begin with, it will, by default, directly contradict that interpretation.

Facetious or not, you can't claim the rules are ambiguous (which you have claimed in other non-facetious places) and then say that there is no need for an FAQ. You do know what FAQ stands for right? The only consistency is that you look like a fool who can't even interpret the stuff you have written. Though I suppose it all makes sense in your head since you seem to think that you are the lord of the KoT rules and what you say is law and therefore there is not need for an FAQ because you will provide the one true interpretation of the rules.

This game is played in tournaments. It needs official clarifications sometimes. One has been provided multiple times. Just because it doesn't agree with your rules has no relevance in this discussion. Suck it up and play how you want instead of trying to dictate what you want to the rules to be. If it upsets you that much, write Iello a letter.