Avoiding Flicker

[Berengar]

@callen

@One Shot

You quote here a private e-mail exchange you claim to have had with David Chart as "the official stance". AFAIK you did so without any authorization by David, or by Atlas Games.

Yes, in an email sent to me, and you are free to go up the laws to see that that is not any sort of privileged thing that cannot be shared.

Private message exchanges do not result as "official stance" without authorization. This is not an issue of law, but of procedure and etiquette. And yes, you can lose your professional standing - that is: your job - by disregarding it.

@callen

Regardless, if you look by the dates of the errata changes, you can see that it was left as 1/day with the original The Anointing of the King errata (1/day only working with the fire-once-and-done interpretation) and then changed to 2/day (required for the repeated-firing interpretation) very shortly after David Chart made his more recent post. That provides some pretty solid completely publicly available information. As that has been publicly available and made so by Atlas Game is what truly makes the stance official.

You infer far too much from changes in errata on a peripheral matter: a digit from stats for an effect in a complex item.

@callen

@One Shot

Rather, David made clear that you had misunderstood him before.

Which is why Atlas Games had to go back and fix the errata because it no longer complied with their own stance? Try again. And, considering I had taken exactly the stance he later took and he told me I was wrong? Try again.

Not quite. Atlas and David changed the digit, conceding that point to you. But we also read here and here on the forum:

@callen

@David Chart

This may not be entirely consistent throughout the line, because I don't think anyone has asked the question exactly this way before.

The question was asked slightly differently, and the answer was the opposite.

In other words: you think David answered that question in that private message exchange, while he does not.

So in that private exchange was a misunderstanding, how it applied to the working of ArM5 p.99 Constant Effect Devices. This happens all the time in talks and message exchanges.
But as it was you, who made part of that exchange public on this forum as "official stance" on that topic, you alone are responsible for not having detected and clarified that misunderstanding before.

Cheers