This is probably going to go south on me… but
I think a more accurate description is that everyone is assuming you are being argumentative. If your intent is to help new players then, DUDE - TL;DR to infinite proportions. If you think a wall of text where you argue every single picayune point of every established rule SOMEHOW helps new players… you and I have VERY different definitions of the word "help."
Am I frustrated? Yes. Why? Because the rules forum is DESIGNED to help new players and to help us locate answers… your constant overreaching has done nothing more than make it MORE DIFFICULT to find out how game mechanics work. IT IS NOT EASIER THIS WAY.
I am nobody. But my frustration has mounted to the point where it is hard to stay silent. I've gotten to the point where I just end up rolling my eyes when I see your user name on a post. Which is sad, because you can actually be helpful and you can add to conversation. It's just when you force everybody to prove every jot and tittle to YOUR satisfaction that I grow weary.
TL:DR - This thread has been hi-jacked by me waxing philosophical. Nothing to see here. Sorry OP!
LoL. I like that you think it's going to go south on you. I generally only get pissed at trolls and intentional a%$#^@%$, though. I respect people who are honest with themselves and others without malice. Responses, like in this thread, are me trying to generate understanding because lack of understanding is what causes all miscommunications. It's also very difficult to explain things, especially incredibly complicated things, on a forum. In real life it would be more like:
"What does this rule say?" "Card does not enter play"
"Okay, so Blood Magic Ritual brings back the dead character and then attempts to attach to it right?" "Right"
"Does it succeed?" "No"
"Does it enter play?" "Yes"
"But this rule says that if it doesn't successfully attach, it doesn't enter play, right?"
And then the discussion would go on from there. It would take like five days just to establish that one thing with my posting habits and then we might still have all the argumentation that follows it.
I'm not going to totally change my modus operandi, but I will definitely consider how I can better serve someone like you for who a shorter, concise, "I'm a TO. I just want to know what the current ruling is." I do feel it's partially my fault as my arguments solely focus on game theory and I often ignore how a TO should rule under current concensus, but no one asks the questions with that specificity.
For example, Darknoj didn't start with "As TOs, how should we be ruling that Blood Magic Ritual works?". I don't give a s$%#. Someone decide and I'll agree to rule that way. He instead asked "How would Blood Magic Ritual work on a No Attachments character? Basicly it sounds like The character would enter play, the attachment would leave play and the character would stay in play". That is a game theory question that must be derived from current rules and rulings and is currently impossible without intervention from Damon. Common sense is what TOs should be using to grease the skids on cards like this in play, but you don't grease the skids at a foundational level. You f%*$&#* fix the damn foundation. Yes, I would probably argue with the answer either way, but saying "I just want to decide on a TO ruling." will shut me up in that regard and everyone can move along except those interested in the actual theory/rules lawyer aspect.
The worst part is that there are often times where people, usually Bomb and Khudzlin, are aware of the actual rule to which is the proper reference. So if I rules link it, I'm just wasting FFG's time on a stupid question. I could've just posted on the forums and gotten the straight up, no assumptions, this is in the rules answer. But getting to that point is often a pain because everyone already operates under a MASSIVE set of assumptions and when someone calls those assumptions into question, it's rocking the boat way too much. The Sons of the Mist conundrum is a great example. Ktom assumed it was right. It wasn't, but he would argue his point with conviction due to it always having been right before even though it wasn't an actual rule. No one had ever challenged him on it. Equally so for his explanation on why immune to attachment characters are immune to Dragon Fear. I think at some point I asked if the immunity was based on being the subject of the effect and he said no. Then Damon said "yes, it was due to being the subject" (paraphrased) when I rules linked it. And yes, I just complimented Bomb and Khudzlin, who I am usually arguing with endlessly. I have a great amount of respect for them because they usually try to be very clear and accurate in what they say and often times have the right reference to make me feel better.
I appreciate the level-headed response, Doulous, even if you didn't think it was. I say things. Sometimes they're stupid things. Just call the bull and laugh with me. It's much easier and I generally laugh at my own stupidity.
Hey… It wasn't that long, was it?