|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I understand that the designation of Cackle as (su) means that it is not subject to normal spell-constraints. But, House Rulings aside, was it really the intention of the designers to have Cackle - a blatantly sonic effect - work in the area of a Silence effect?
I question whether this is errata. I am sure a case can be made either way, but I would really like to hear what the designers were thinking when they came up with that...
(Actually, I wonder what they were thinking with a number of capabilities in the APG, but that's a different story :) )
Actually it's supernatural in nature and as such doesn't require somatic, vocal, or any other type of component -- thus by RAW it works in a silence area.
Much in-game confusion can be avoided by reading entire descriptions of relevant material. To wit:
Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects.
:)
Much in-game confusion can be avoided by reading entire descriptions of relevant material. To wit:
Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects.:)
But that's just it -- it isn't a sonic or language based attack/spell/effect, as it isn't described as such.
Without that key discription (or anything specifically saying it is sonic or language based) it isn't -- and as a supernatural ability it works in silence.
But that's just it -- it isn't a sonic or language based attack/spell/effect, as it isn't described as such.
Ah. My bad. On the plus side, it is impressive that I can type all of this with my foot in my mouth. :)
But that's just it -- it isn't a sonic or language based attack/spell/effect, as it isn't described as such.Ah. My bad. On the plus side, it is impressive that I can type all of this with my foot in my mouth. :)
Not a huge issue this one specifically comes up so often many people would think that it does -- without looking and reading the text completely ;D.
I do it at times too so we are all -- well at least demi-human I think!
I do it at times too so we are all -- well at least demi-human I think!
Ha! :) The funny thing is that I spent some time recently making a high-level witch just because. I read and re-read those hexes, and somehow it just got stuck in my brain that Cackle was said to be a sonic effect.
Of course, I also have an upper respiratory tract infection, and I'm heavily medicated, so perhaps relying on memory isn't the best course of action at the moment.
I do it at times too so we are all -- well at least demi-human I think!Ha! :) The funny thing is that I spent some time recently making a high-level witch just because. I read and re-read those hexes, and somehow it just got stuck in my brain that Cackle was said to be a sonic effect.
Of course, I also have an upper respiratory tract infection, and I'm heavily medicated, so perhaps relying on memory isn't be best course of action at the moment.
Those sound like perfect reasons to rebalance your finances and change your stock options RIGHT NOW.
=)
|
Actually it's supernatural in nature and as such doesn't require somatic, vocal, or any other type of component -- thus by RAW it works in a silence area.
Channel energy is a supernatural ability, yet it requires a gesture and a focus (the cleric must be able to present her holy symbol). Many, even most, supernatural abilities don't require any special action, but if the rule describes one, a GM can enforce it.
Actually it's supernatural in nature and as such doesn't require somatic, vocal, or any other type of component -- thus by RAW it works in a silence area.Channel energy is a supernatural ability, yet it requires a gesture and a focus (the cleric must be able to present her holy symbol). Many, even most, supernatural abilities don't require any special action, but if the rule describes one, a GM can enforce it.
specific exceptions which are explicitedly called out -- which the hex specifically lacks.
|
Actually it's supernatural in nature and as such doesn't require somatic, vocal, or any other type of component -- thus by RAW it works in a silence area.Channel energy is a supernatural ability, yet it requires a gesture and a focus (the cleric must be able to present her holy symbol). Many, even most, supernatural abilities don't require any special action, but if the rule describes one, a GM can enforce it.
Being able to present one's holy symbol does not necessarily require free hands or even the ability to move (as somatic components do). A cleric with their symbol emblazoned on their breastplate, or tatooed on their chest could "strongly display" their holy symbol by simply standing proudly.
|
|
specific exceptions which are explicitedly called out -- which the hex specifically lacks.Actually it's supernatural in nature and as such doesn't require somatic, vocal, or any other type of component -- thus by RAW it works in a silence area.Channel energy is a supernatural ability, yet it requires a gesture and a focus (the cleric must be able to present her holy symbol). Many, even most, supernatural abilities don't require any special action, but if the rule describes one, a GM can enforce it.
"The witch cackles madly" seems at least as specific and explicit as "channeling the power of her faith through her holy symbol". Or would you allow a witch to gain the benefit of the hex without laughing like a crazy person?
Being able to present one's holy symbol does not necessarily require free hands or even the ability to move (as somatic components do).
I didn't mention free hands. A cleric can certainly channel energy while prone, so if she didn't have to move, she would "be able to present" the symbol when paralysed, which would make nonsense of the requirement and greatly change encounters with ghouls.
|
|
specific exceptions which are explicitedly called out -- which the hex specifically lacks.Actually it's supernatural in nature and as such doesn't require somatic, vocal, or any other type of component -- thus by RAW it works in a silence area.Channel energy is a supernatural ability, yet it requires a gesture and a focus (the cleric must be able to present her holy symbol). Many, even most, supernatural abilities don't require any special action, but if the rule describes one, a GM can enforce it."The witch cackles madly" seems at least as specific and explicit as "channeling the power of her faith through her holy symbol". Or would you allow a witch to gain the benefit of the hex without laughing aloud?
Being able to present one's holy symbol does not necessarily require free hands or even the ability to move (as somatic components do).I didn't mention free hands. A cleric can certainly channel energy when prone, so if he didn't have to move, he would "be able to present" the symbol when paralysed, which would make nonsense of the requirement and greatly change encounters with ghouls.
"The witch cackles madly" doesn't say that they need to be heard or seen, just that they cackle. Note that they would still partially hear their own cackle as silence is an emanation (it would stop at the skin level).
The cleric would have to have been paralyzed in a rather statue-esque position (as opposed to the normal "caught with their pants down" position) in order for it to really be "strongly present." Unless, of course, they coated their entire body with holy symbols. At which point it's *always* strongly presented :P
Either way, both things are primarily flavor that it is up to the DM to rule on.
Actually, in a campaign world where witches are still quite rare, I think it's quite cool that they RAW aren't affected in that way. Makes her more "weird" in that her cackle can pierce even magical silence!
"The witch cackles madly" seems at least as specific and explicit as "channeling the power of her faith through her holy symbol". Or would you allow a witch to gain the benefit of the hex without laughing like a crazy person?specific exceptions which are explicitedly called out -- which the hex specifically lacks.Actually it's supernatural in nature and as such doesn't require somatic, vocal, or any other type of component -- thus by RAW it works in a silence area.Channel energy is a supernatural ability, yet it requires a gesture and a focus (the cleric must be able to present her holy symbol). Many, even most, supernatural abilities don't require any special action, but if the rule describes one, a GM can enforce it.
Bad question: Obviously I would -- I allow the witch to cackle in a silence area don't I? ;D
The key is that the move action is spent more and that there isn't an anti-magic anything to prevent the supernatural power.
What the witch does as opposed to what happens is less of an issue honestly -- nothing says you have to hear the witch, and again there isn't anything that says "This is a sonic/language based ability" like the evil eye hex says for being "mind affecting".
|
|
Believe it or not, I actually understand all of the logic described here - and there is no question in my mind that this is how the rule is written. Not really my question...
I'm asking if this is what was INTENDED. (Obviously only a designer could really answer that). I'm suggesting that by its very nature, Cackle appears to be a sonic effect. It is not that the rule states that it is, or that it is NOT affected by sonic suppression like silence. It simply says nothing beyond (su), and I am asking if this is what was intended aka errata.
There's a couple of things like this in the witches repetoire that makes me question this kind of interpretation. Take for instance, Charm. It is also listed as (su).
A witch can charm an animal or humanoid creature within 30 feet by beckoning and speaking soothing words.
Yes, but do the words have to be heard?
Or how about:
Misfortune (Su): The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round.
Yes, but does the Witch have to have line of effect to the creature? In theory, they could target an invisible creature, because it doesn't specifically say they DON'T have to be able to see them, or even really know where they are. They could be on another floor, as long as it was within 30'.
The same is true of my personal favorite for unbalancing, slumber.
All in all, I'm not enamored of interpreting rules based on their lack of specificity. I can obviously understand why you don't want to call things out over and over again, but I suspect this may be one of those cases where the specifics should override the generality.
My point being this - if this is what the designers intended, then so be it. I don't want to deprive my players of the perks of choosing a class as written - no matter how unbalanced I might think it is. But if these are oversights and mistakes, then I feel justified in calling down a little house-ruling on them.
I had hoped that the Principals might weigh in on this, as the rest of us are just interpreting what was written. And I'm not disputing anyone's interpretation! I begrudgingly admit I have little choice but to interpret these rules in the same way. But they really feel like they are incomplete, and would love to hear why that is not the case...
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Believe it or not, I actually understand all of the logic described here - and there is no question in my mind that this is how the rule is written. Not really my question...
I'm asking if this is what was INTENDED. (Obviously only a designer could really answer that). I'm suggesting that by its very nature, Cackle appears to be a sonic effect. It is not that the rule states that it is, or that it is NOT affected by sonic suppression like silence. It simply says nothing beyond (su), and I am asking if this is what was intended aka errata.
There's a couple of things like this in the witches repetoire that makes me question this kind of interpretation. Take for instance, Charm. It is also listed as (su).
A witch can charm an animal or humanoid creature within 30 feet by beckoning and speaking soothing words.Yes, but do the words have to be heard?
Fluffy stuff for the ability, that is still an SU ability with no mention of it not working if there is silence. The general rule of SU abilities has been mentioned and with no exception in the ability description to counter that, we're left with a fluff description of the ability.
Or how about:
Misfortune (Su): The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round.Yes, but does the Witch have to have line of effect to the creature? In theory, they could target an invisible creature, because it doesn't specifically say they DON'T have to be able to see them, or even really know where they are. They could be on another floor, as long as it was within 30'.
In order to target something, yes they have to be visible somehow. Again back to the general rule of targeting something. There ARE rules about targeting, those come into play when attempting to use an ability on someone/something. Those same rules talk about Line of effect. Basically unless the ability specifically states you can ignore those rules (which this ability doesn't) you have to chose a valid target with the existing rules.
The same is true of my personal favorite for unbalancing, slumber.
Does this ability require you to target something and specifically say you don't need to follow the general rules? No? Well there you have it, those rules are in play.
All in all, I'm not enamored of interpreting rules based on their lack of specificity. I can obviously understand why you don't want to call things out over and over again, but I suspect this may be one of those cases where the specifics should override the generality.My point being this - if this is what the designers intended, then so be it. I don't want to deprive my players of the perks of choosing a class as written - no matter how unbalanced I might think it is. But if these are oversights and mistakes, then I feel justified in calling down a little house-ruling on them.
I had hoped that the Principals might weigh in on this, as the...
They aren't oversights, the rules say one thing, the fluff says something else. The rules trump the "fluff." It has always been that way, hopefully always will. The fluff has no influence on the mechanics of the abilities unless the ability specifically limits it or states it allows for exceptions for the general rules.
There are abilities that are specifically called out to be "sonic" in nature. Those don't operate in a silenced area, they also happen to state they don't. Spells that have verbal components are stated to not work in that area either. SU abilities are stated to not be affected by such an area unless the ability states otherwise and therefore provide an exception to the rules of the game normally.
The rules assume you are aware of all the rules, it is fairly straight-forward in most respects. If you are unfamiliar with all the rules then maybe then yes, you will have problems with the abilities not being specific enough. But that isn't an issue with the rules. That comes from the lack of knowledge regarding the rules (which are admittedly spread around most of the time).
This isn't an attack, this is a point being made that if you are seriously asking questions regarding these abilities, that you need to go back and read the core rules regarding spells/abilities, targeting and maybe cover. Once you get those down pat, there won't be any confusion or issues with balance if your players try to target an invisible creature because you can point to the page number and say "no, it doesn't work that way."
Personally I prefer cackle working in silence. Its much creepier to me to see someone maniacly laughing at me when I can't hear them.
|
|
OK, I'll easily concede the targeting issue. That's clean.
The fluff vs rules thing. Well, yeah, obviously. But there is a level of inconsistency here that causes me to raise the question.
Consider this (completely hypothetical) supernatural ability:
Kareoke Inspiration (su) - the character sings a well-known inspirational song that grants everyone with 30' a +2 morale bonus to Will saves
OK, so by the rules, this works in silence. Because it doesn't say it doesn't, and the standard rules interpretation applies.
But if that is what was INTENDED, why would you make it a sonic "fluff"? If all trapping is without value, why bother? It should just be:
+2 Will bonus (su) - the character grants everyone within 30' a +2 morale bonus to Will Saves.
But we don't do that. We build a "real-world" (and I use the term VERY loosely) justification for it. This is, after all, a roleplaying game, not a mathematical exercise. And if I have included the flavor, I would probably add something along the lines of : this is a sonic effect. Because I defined it as one in the fluff.
So when I see this, I question - did we leave that out? Why? How could Cackle NOT be sonic fluff?
I have no doubt about how to interpret the rule as written. I am questioning whether there is errata here.
OK, I'll easily concede the targeting issue. That's clean.
The fluff vs rules thing. Well, yeah, obviously. But there is a level of inconsistency here that causes me to raise the question.
Consider this (completely hypothetical) supernatural ability:
Kareoke Inspiration (su) - the character sings a well-known inspirational song that grants everyone with 30' a +2 morale bonus to Will saves
OK, so by the rules, this works in silence. Because it doesn't say it doesn't, and the standard rules interpretation applies.
But if that is what was INTENDED, why would you make it a sonic "fluff"? If all trapping is without value, why bother? It should just be:
+2 Will bonus (su) - the character grants everyone within 30' a +2 morale bonus to Will Saves.
But we don't do that. We build a "real-world" (and I use the term VERY loosely) justification for it. This is, after all, a roleplaying game, not a mathematical exercise. And if I have included the flavor, I would probably add something along the lines of : this is a sonic effect. Because I defined it as one in the fluff.
So when I see this, I question - did we leave that out? Why? How could Cackle NOT be sonic fluff?
I have no doubt about how to interpret the rule as written. I am questioning whether there is errata here.
Because it is fluff and it doesn't matter. Because when we read the ability it is nifty neat to have something to compare it to and envision, even though the mechanics of the ability have nothing to do with the fluff. Because they increase the power of the ability by NOT limiting it in that way.
What is more exciting, reading you get to give a penalty of X or reading that the witch releases this mind shaking cackle that imposes the penalty of X. Chances are the fluff of the ability is an afterthought or was only the catalyst (this sounds like a neat ability, what can I make it do and make it work) to the actual mechanics. The "coolness" of it has to be worked into the mechanics of the game somehow. The INTENT of the ability was this, this is how it works mechanically in the game. There isn't a problem of intent being lost, just that you don't like the fluff that was given as it seems to make no sense to you. If that is a problem RE-FLUFF it, it doesn't change the game any to redo the description, the mechanics stay the same.
My point is, stop trying to make "sense" of everything, you'll enjoy it more... Enjoy the fluff for what it is, part of the story. Don't try to impose it on the mechanics that work.
|
|
I understand what you are saying. I find that approach... saddening...
Let me preface this by saying we are all different, and different things appeal to different folks. I can only speak for myself. Some may agree - some may not...
I do not game for mechanics sake. I see the mechanics as a way to express, in a playable manner, the "reality" of the world in which we game. The "fluff" as you call it is The Thing. It is WHAT we game. The mechanics are a just that - a mechanism for expressing the fluff.
I perceive that you envision things the other way around. The game is fundamentally mechanical - the mechanics are what matters, and the "fluff" is a mere drapery over the beauty of the mechanics. If the Fluff disagrees with the mechanics, it is the Fluff that need to change.
I just don't think this way. I'm not a simulationist, but I do believe that the story being told is more important than the mechanics used to tell it. To echo your sentiment, this is not an attack - just an observation that the question I raise is, or is not, an issue, depending on which side of the Mechanic Rule fence you sit on.
Forgive me if I do not take your response as gospel. It is internally consistent, and makes sense from the perspective from which it is given. But I question whether it is representative of the entirety of the gaming community, and I wonder if this is, again, what the Designers intended.
I appreciate your continued willingness to pursue this line of inquiry - no offense is intended.
|
|
I will note that both your opinions (mostly) fuse with the following interpretation: The Cackle is a necessary focus for the witch, but being seen or heard doing so is irrelevant.
I agree with Grim's point that the mechanics are merely there to explain how to adjudicate the fluff, not to override it entirely. That said, using mechanics to work backwards into the fluff can help make it make sense without potentially altering the mechanics that may have been put in place as a balancing measure. This is what I attempted to do at the end of my first paragraph.
On an unrelated note, The Cackle sounds like a B horror movie.
I understand what you are saying. I find that approach... saddening...
Let me preface this by saying we are all different, and different things appeal to different folks. I can only speak for myself. Some may agree - some may not...
I do not game for mechanics sake. I see the mechanics as a way to express, in a playable manner, the "reality" of the world in which we game. The "fluff" as you call it is The Thing. It is WHAT we game. The mechanics are a just that - a mechanism for expressing the fluff.
I perceive that you envision things the other way around. The game is fundamentally mechanical - the mechanics are what matters, and the "fluff" is a mere drapery over the beauty of the mechanics. If the Fluff disagrees with the mechanics, it is the Fluff that need to change.
I just don't think this way. I'm not a simulationist, but I do believe that the story being told is more important than the mechanics used to tell it. To echo your sentiment, this is not an attack - just an observation that the question I raise is, or is not, an issue, depending on which side of the Mechanic Rule fence you sit on.
Forgive me if I do not take your response as gospel. It is internally consistent, and makes sense from the perspective from which it is given. But I question whether it is representative of the entirety of the gaming community, and I wonder if this is, again, what the Designers intended.
I appreciate your continued willingness to pursue this line of inquiry - no offense is intended.
Mr.McKay I would suggest changing the fluff to match the mechanics so they make sense to you. The current fluff for any ability is the creator's vision, but that does not make it the only correct vision. As an example I am playing a guide archtype ranger as an ex-assassin. The ability to apply the favored enemy bonus one on enemy represents his determination to make sure the target dies. I don't use the animal companion since I am pretending it is not the ranger class.
As for the witch's cackle, maybe the sound of the cackle is just a side-affect of the cackle ability, and not the carrier of the ability. If the sound is not the carrier then it does not matter if it gets to the target or not. The only that matters is the magical energy reaching the target.
I understand what you are saying. I find that approach... saddening...
Let me preface this by saying we are all different, and different things appeal to different folks. I can only speak for myself. Some may agree - some may not...
I do not game for mechanics sake. I see the mechanics as a way to express, in a playable manner, the "reality" of the world in which we game. The "fluff" as you call it is The Thing. It is WHAT we game. The mechanics are a just that - a mechanism for expressing the fluff.
I perceive that you envision things the other way around. The game is fundamentally mechanical - the mechanics are what matters, and the "fluff" is a mere drapery over the beauty of the mechanics. If the Fluff disagrees with the mechanics, it is the Fluff that need to change.
I just don't think this way. I'm not a simulationist, but I do believe that the story being told is more important than the mechanics used to tell it. To echo your sentiment, this is not an attack - just an observation that the question I raise is, or is not, an issue, depending on which side of the Mechanic Rule fence you sit on.
Forgive me if I do not take your response as gospel. It is internally consistent, and makes sense from the perspective from which it is given. But I question whether it is representative of the entirety of the gaming community, and I wonder if this is, again, what the Designers intended.
I appreciate your continued willingness to pursue this line of inquiry - no offense is intended.
I don't find offense to any of it, just trying to point out what the fundamentals are.
The problem is this IS a game, the mechanics DO matter. If they didn't we wouldn't be playing a game, it would be a (hopefully) group story telling session. The mechanics are what make it a game and are fundamental to that effect. You can say it is "story, story, story" that is important but that isn't truly correct. If I wanted to talk with my friends for hours on end I would do that, but we are getting together to roll the dice and try our luck in the game world. Yes the story is important and what drives us on, but it is the mechanics that give us that sense of resistance and structure that is required to keep us from just doing "anything" all the time. They are just as important if not more important than the story in that respect. Fluff can be changed from game to game, world setting to world setting, but keeping the mechanics the same is a balancing matter for the game. But that is a good thing, and is in truth intended by the designers. Fluff being the drapery over the mechanics allows the game to be used in numerous ways, the limit is only what you can imagine with in the confines given by the rule set.
This has nothing to do with being a "simulationist" it is being honest about this particular game. If you really wanted a story driven game, there are many many better systems that do it the way you seem to think it should be done. You seem to want something that this particular rule set doesn't do well at.
As for what is intended... Well put it this way, the game designers have taken a system that has worked the way I've explained for years, they've tweaked it here and there, but in essence it is what it has been for the backwards compatibility of all the books produced before it. You want to see it another way and that is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that this game is basically a set of rules of things we can do, with a bunch of exceptions to the rules. SU abilities are set to work a specific way AS A RULE. It is in writing in the book, and the game designers put it there and are well versed with them. You contend that when they put that SU stamp on an ability that they could be mistaken. Given the multitudes of people who played the game before this point, the numerous times your complaint has been asked in its various forms and the fact that they didn't change the rules when they had the chance to rewrite them...
I'm fairly certain my "response" is in fact gospel on this particular case. The designers know these rules in and out, they put these rules out for beta testing with the community here, where people could pick them apart and try to break them in ways the designers might not have ever thought of. If you are hoping that some sort of official response is coming out saying "Yeah we meant this ability to be sonic based and not work in silenced areas even though we marked it as SU and has been out for a few months..."
Well, let me put it this way, I wouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
lots of stuff
Nothing is sacred. All of man is fallible, to the point that an error could take decades or longer to catch even when under close scrutiny and even when this error is glaring once seen.
The "fluff" can be seen as a sort of vision statement. It lays out what the designed was going for when they created the mechanics. Sometimes those mechanics must differ from the fluff for balance reasons, but not always. In either case, the fluff and mechanics are linked because both are there to represent the same thing from the angles of art and simulation, respectively.
If the art and the simulation conflict, the only thing one can do is make assumptions as it is impossible to tell whether the inconsistency is deliberate (for balance reasons) or accidental. Sure, there is a "RAW" as we have defined it for the purposes of these discussions, but that should neither forbid nor discourage discussions of RAI that have solid backing until that evidence is explained by the designer (whether original or current).
Organized play is 90+% RAW, home play is 90+% RAI. Since most games are home games, RAI definitely matters just as much as RAW, even if its backing is weaker.
As an (obvious) example: Just because sleep has no RAW penalties does not mean the DM will not inflict them.
TL;DR - Take a chill pill.
lots of stuffNothing is sacred. All of man is fallible, to the point that an error could take decades or longer to catch even when under close scrutiny and even when this error is glaring once seen.
The "fluff" can be seen as a sort of vision statement. It lays out what the designed was going for when they created the mechanics. Sometimes those mechanics must differ from the fluff for balance reasons, but not always. In either case, the fluff and mechanics are linked because both are there to represent the same thing from the angles of art and simulation, respectively.
If the art and the simulation conflict, the only thing one can do is make assumptions as it is impossible to tell whether the inconsistency is deliberate (for balance reasons) or accidental. Sure, there is a "RAW" as we have defined it for the purposes of these discussions, but that should neither forbid nor discourage discussions of RAI that have solid backing until that evidence is explained by the designer (whether original or current).
Organized play is 90+% RAW, home play is 90+% RAI. Since most games are home games, RAI definitely matters just as much as RAW, even if its backing is weaker.
As an (obvious) example: Just because sleep has no RAW penalties does not mean the DM will not inflict them.
TL;DR - Take a chill pill.
I wasn't stressing, I was taking the time out to explain things.
Fluff from Pathfinder in comparison to 3.5 has changed, yet the vast majority of the rules are the same. People have even gone so far as to call PFRPG Paizo's published homebrew rules. And it is as close to the truth as anything else. If you want to argue Fluff over Rules, do it someplace other than the Rules Forum please. This is a place to explain how things work, not how you'd like them to when the rules say differently... That's the Suggestions/HouseRules/Home Brew forum.
TL;DR Stick it where the sun doesn't shine for assuming something that wasn't true.
What is TL DR?
TL;DR Stick it where the sun doesn't shine for assuming something that wasn't true.Was that really called for?
Not much raises my ire than being told to "chill out" after spending the time to formulate my thoughts in response to what someone has said or asked. If had been annoyed or angry I could have easily done the typical trolling post we get to see on the forums so much.
So in a word, yes. Or else I wouldn't have taken the time to write it.
What is TL DR?
Too Long Didn't Read
|
|
In my mind the RAW had been answered before this post was written by the OP themselves (it doesn't say sonic or that the cackle must be heard, therefore it works), so the only thing we could have been discussing is RAI.
I didn't notice that this was the "rules" forum, but the OP was asking not "Is this RAW" but rather "is this a supposed to be RAW?" Because this is a "supposed to" it becomes a discussion of RAI, with any overly enthusiastic insistence on the exact wordings currently present being misguided (albeit not too misguided) in relation to the original question.
Forgive me for assuming that discussion of intention in a thread asking for intention was the appropriate course of action. In this light I hope you at least realize why I said "take a chill pill" to all the arguing over intention-versus-RAW going on and don't use that as a reason to discount my arguments.