>I'm quite certain that there was more to it then that. I'll dig out the
>source tomorrow (at the moment my beloved is sleeping in the room where
>I have my books)
And if you can't find anything, will you be admitting that fact? Or will you be ignoring it like you did with the fact that the people who were sloppy in interpreting Elder Secrets happened to be the same people who wrote it?
>Interesting wording btw. Even that seems to point out that its non
>enchanted iron, and enchanted (tempered) rune metals.
If the writers meant to point that out, then they would have said "non-enchanted iron". As it is iron (unqualified) means _all_ types of iron whether you like it or not. Enchanted Iron is not called Steel here as this was written before Elder Secrets came out.
>Yes indeed. But it does not claim that they are vulnerable to enchanted
>iron.
It does not state that they are vulnerable to unenchanted iron either. So where does that leave you?
>The RQ-3 book also gives Iron Dwarfs the skills forge iron and _temper_
>iron.
No, it doesn't. That's Elder Secrets.
> > I'm just referring to the fact that on the basis of a highly
> > idiosyncratic and tortured reading of the material, you are damning
> > others for being sloppy.
>Ah. But the truth is that many of the people that wrote scenarios for RQ
>didn't seem to understand the rules all too clearly.
No. The truth is that many of the people who wrote scenarios for RQ had english as their first language and read the rules correctly (and even wrote those rules).
If you want to have tempered iron lose its ability to harm elves and trolls, you are quite welcome to do so in your own game. But as for pretending your interpretation is the only possible one according to the rules and that everybody else is sloppy and/or wrong, you are just simply annoying.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail