(Retorical Question) Have ya ever met one of those folks that go to a film with ya and undoubtably can find some aspect of the special Fx that just does not make sense.
Well gentlemen as I was doing my studying of BoW to prepare for Tabard trials, I was reading out loud in my Irish dialect and when I came to the paragraph 1 Section 5 Subsection 5, I paused and laughed, as I did not anticipate finding such a well worded document to completely be undone with as little as fifteen words.
Oh how I was having fun taking myself seriously and everybuddy else, darn silly me.
Next battle, watch me rhino hide, leg sweep, throw nets and oh yes my most personal favorite pull garb and clothes:), lol.
All of a sudden I feel free.....seriously free. Okay I hope ya are laughing with me and may be a little at me.
Isk please bring my senior tabard on the 14th,(big smile) I has $10.00 for the printing fee.
Appendix A
1. Weapon Checking
1.5. Prohibited Weapons:
1.5.1. Entangling Weapons (nets, lassos).
1.5.2. Unmanned Weapons (traps).
1.5.3. Non-compliant double ended Weapons (nunchaku, double ended daggers).
1.5.4. Punching Weapons (punching daggers, tonfas).
1.5.5. Any Weapon when used as intended violates the rules stipulated in the Book of War.
Hmmm, I'm going to ask for some clarification. I believe the intent is to read "Any weapon that violates a rule by being used as it is intended is an illegal weapon." It's supposed to be a catch-all.
Quite possibly once again the reader/paricipant/initiate is somehow asked to choose letter of rule or spirit of rule. As for clarification, sounds interesting. The copyright date is of interest. Until the rules are ammended to clarify letter or spirit, can we use swords for arrows and arrows for swords,lol, just me being child like Tibs. Ya already know what to expect in minimum from me, a jovial adherence,:).
I was right.
It's pretty straight forward. Prohibited weapons: Ones that when you use them the way you're suppose to use 'em, they break the rules.Tonfa type weapons are a great example. If you just use a weapon with that style guard normally, you WILL anvil. That's an illegal weapon.
the declaration is under the heading prohibited weapons, yet the final statement is started with the words "Any weapon". As mentioned previously just me being inquisitive, and yet the clarification did not come. Most of the rules can be read without much translation and context is clearly communicated, yet in 1.5.5 context strays more than marginally in my opinion, and as I have discussed this with other less 'board blog" vocal participants there is concurance of translation of the usage of "Any weapons" straying from linear and context.
As mentioned on the Bel Board. appreciating your efforts Tibby.
Oh what a headache I got from the Bel board, it is of lil wonder to me now why a large complaint of events is the sausage fest,lol.
Yeah, the internet sucks. The bel boards are a shining example of that.
I agree that the wording isn't so concise, but the intent is:
"these previously listed weapons are specifically listed because that's what we came up with at the time, but for anyone wanting to cheese the rules, if you make any weapon that breaks a rule when you use it, then its automatically prohibited as well.
Its a matter of poor punctuation actually:
Prohibited Weapons:
Any Weapon, when used as intended, violates the rules stipulated in the Book of War.
If you add the commas it makes more sense :-p
"Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!!!! Ahhhhhhh!
My ability to concur with punctuation with 1.5.5 is overcome by the "context" and "intended". For sure 1.5.5 is not a dry read.