15th Jan '18 10:09:26 AM

**lluewhyn** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

** Attacks of Opportunity/Opportunity Attacks started out like this in Third Edition, so each successive edition of the game has mostly scaled them back. The basic principle behind them was simple and understandable: In a game that uses turns for simplicity instead of real-time, there should be some kind of restriction against a character abusing the turn-based rules to simply bypass a whole group of defenders to take out a weaker target, steal an object, etc. The problems occurred with both confusing terminology and an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach as more situations were added to what could trigger an Opportunity Attack. The former described this as a situation where the trigger creature lowers their defenses, but a more accurate description would be a situation where the trigger creature lowers their counter-attack offense: i.e., you can take a free swing at them because you're not worried about leaving an opening for them to swing back at you. The latter issue combines with the first issue confusion to where using an action triggers an attack even though the condition where the action was made isn't changing regardless of the action. To explain, why does attempting to stand up from prone trigger a free attack but simply lying helplessly prone does not, or attacking someone without a melee weapon in hand (e.g., crossbow or punching) triggers an AoO but simply standing there unarmed doesn't? *** Fourth Edition reduced the circumstances to just attempting to move past a creature or use a ranged attack next to them, although oddly giving the defender supposedly unlimited attacks as long as it was against a new target, and Fifth Edition reduced this even further to just moving past the defending creature completely, as you can still circle around an opponent. No edition has brought up the concept of removing your ability to use AoO if other enemies are engaging you (e.g. if you have five creatures engaging you, how can you possibly get a free swing at a different one?), but most likely is due to the rules getting just too complex at that point.

21st Nov '17 11:07:30 PM

**InfinityPlusTwo** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 86,87 (click to see context) from:**

* The balk rule. Balks are sound simple to explain, but they're hard to actually call. A pitcher has balked when he makes a motion towards a base, but throws to a different base. So a pitcher can't act like he's throwing a pitch and then throw to first base to pick off a runner, which is why when trying to pick off a runner, the pitcher will almost always move their front leg towards the base. The problem is, how do you classify a "motion"? Is it when the pitcher starts his windup? When he lifts his leg? When he moves his arm? Balks are almost always controversial at the Major League level. Balks can also be called for similarly deceptive moves by the catcher.

**to:**

* The balk rule. Balks are sound simple to explain, but they're hard to actually call. A pitcher has balked when he makes a motion towards a base, but throws to a different base. So a pitcher can't act like he's throwing a pitch and then throw to first base to pick off a runner, which is why when trying to pick off a runner, the pitcher will almost always move their front leg towards the base. The problem is, how do you classify a "motion"? Is it when the pitcher starts his windup? When he lifts his leg? When he moves his arm? There's also the issue of what counts as "towards" a base- if a pitcher starts moving in a direction between home plate and first base, for instance, which base is he throwing to? Balks are almost always controversial at the Major League level. Balks can also be called for similarly deceptive moves by the ~~catcher.~~

catcher. And there's some other things that count as balks, too- it's also a balk if the pitcher motions towards a base like he's going to throw but doesn't throw, if he starts making a throw without first fully coming to a "set" position, if he throws to home plate while his foot isn't on the pitching rubber, or, well, a lot of other things. There's even a few ways to balk that are clearly completely unintentional, like tripping and falling off the mound or dropping the ball.

17th Nov '17 1:29:58 PM

**CurledUpWithDakka** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:**

** {{Tournament Play}}ers probably dont' have any confusion about castling or en passant; for them ''That One Rule'' is the long-evolving set of rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn.

**to:**

** {{Tournament Play}}ers probably ~~dont' ~~don't have any confusion about castling or en passant; for them ''That One Rule'' is the long-evolving set of rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn.

17th Oct '17 9:08:16 AM

**MegaMarioMan** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:**

** Ever since Soul the Duelist was released, some cards had the text that said "ignore summoning conditions." This is clearly self explanatory when special summoning from the hand or deck so most likely, the logic for most players at time was that if it applied to reviving it after using a Foolish Burial, then the same situation could occur right? WRONG! According to Konami's official ruling ever since the release of Level Modulation in Elemental Energy, a monster with a special summoning condition, whether it can be revived or not by other card effects must always be summoned properly first before it can be revived, thereby the "ignore summoning condition" clause not applying in this situation. So a monster like Armed Dragon LV7 must be special summoned to the field first if players want to revive it with Level Modulation. The fact that there is an exception to this rule is not implied on the card text, and it makes the game look inconsistent.

**to:**

** Ever since Soul the Duelist was released, some cards had the text that said "ignore summoning conditions." This is clearly self explanatory when special summoning from the hand or deck so most likely, the logic for most players at time was that if it applied to reviving it after using a Foolish Burial, then the same situation could occur right? WRONG! According to Konami's official ruling ever since the release of Level Modulation in Elemental Energy, a monster with a special summoning condition, whether it can be revived or not by other card effects must always be summoned properly first before it can be revived, thereby the "ignore summoning condition" clause not applying in this situation. So a monster like Armed Dragon ~~LV7 ~~[=LV7=] must be special summoned to the field first if players want to revive it with Level Modulation. The fact that there is an exception to this rule is not implied on the card text, and it makes the game look inconsistent.

29th Sep '17 12:26:22 PM

**Berrenta** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 8,9 (click to see context) from:**

Games require rules. Even CalvinBall has a few (You can't play it the same way twice, you must wear a mask, and you are not allowed to question the masks). Most of the rules are simple, especially in simple games, like tag. But then, there's ThatOneRule.

**to:**

Games require rules. Even CalvinBall has a few (You can't play it the same way twice, you must wear a mask, and you are not allowed to question the masks). Most of the rules are simple, especially in simple games, like tag. But then, there's ~~ThatOneRule.~~

That One Rule.

29th Sep '17 9:00:38 AM

**sturmovik** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

** The the offside rule in AssociationFootball can be considered an artifact from the older Football codes it evolved from where there exists a well defined line of scrimmage. The problem came with attempting to adapt the same concept to a free flowing sport with no stoppage of play. The more common solution is to use fixed "zone" based offside system.

25th Sep '17 11:51:17 AM

**KingArgorok** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

**Ever since Soul the Duelist was released, some cards had the text that said "ignore summoning conditions." This is clearly self explanatory when special summoning from the hand or deck so most likely, the logic for most players at time was that if it applied to reviving it after using a Foolish Burial, then the same situation could occur right? WRONG! According to Konami's official ruling ever since the release of Level Modulation in Elemental Energy, a monster with a special summoning condition, whether it can be revived or not by other card effects must always be summoned properly first before it can be revived, thereby the "ignore summoning condition" clause not applying in this situation. So a monster like Armed Dragon LV7 must be special summoned to the field first if players want to revive it with Level Modulation. The fact that there is an exception to this rule is not implied on the card text, and it makes the game look inconsistent.

13th Sep '17 8:47:27 PM

**GuiRitter** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 103 (click to see context) from:**

* Buffalo Sabres fans are the only hockey fans that know the rules on players in the goal crease, the result of Brett Hull scoring a scoring a controversial Cup-winning goal off his own rebound in the third overtime period of Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals. Video replay showed that Hull's skate was in the crease (i.e. the area in front of the goal, reserved for the goalie), which the Sabres argued was a violation of a rule then in effect that disallowed goals if an offensive player was in the goal crease. However, the rule stated that a player can enter the crease, as long as he has control of the puck, and the refs ruled that since Brett's shot rebounded to him, he had never lost control of the puck. After ''that'' disaster, [[ObviousRulePatch the rules were changed,]] so that the player could now be in the goal crease, as long as they do not touch the goaltender. This led to some angry goaltenders as opposed to some angry Sabres fans.

**to:**

* Buffalo Sabres fans are the only hockey fans that know the rules on players in the goal crease, the result of Brett Hull scoring a ~~scoring a ~~controversial Cup-winning goal off his own rebound in the third overtime period of Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals. Video replay showed that Hull's skate was in the crease (i.e. the area in front of the goal, reserved for the goalie), which the Sabres argued was a violation of a rule then in effect that disallowed goals if an offensive player was in the goal crease. However, the rule stated that a player can enter the crease, as long as he has control of the puck, and the refs ruled that since Brett's shot rebounded to him, he had never lost control of the puck. After ''that'' disaster, [[ObviousRulePatch the rules were changed,]] so that the player could now be in the goal crease, as long as they do not touch the goaltender. This led to some angry goaltenders as opposed to some angry Sabres fans.

9th Sep '17 3:19:50 PM

**Madrugada** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 61,62 (click to see context) from:**

%% * Overtime in UsefulNotes/CollegiateAmericanFootball.

* Most such rules are buried in the rulebook until a controversy uncovers it (e.g., [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule the Tuck rule]], the "ineligible receiver" rule), or through subjective over-enforcement (e.g., "Defenseless Player" rulings).

* Most such rules are buried in the rulebook until a controversy uncovers it (e.g., [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule the Tuck rule]], the "ineligible receiver" rule), or through subjective over-enforcement (e.g., "Defenseless Player" rulings).

**to:**

*

**Changed line(s) 91,92 (click to see context) from:**

* The Duckworth-Lewis Method was devised as a totally fair way to decide matches affected by rain. Unfortunately it's an extremely complex mathematical formula the results of which change every time a ball is bowled, a run is scored, basically every time anything at all happens. Since its introduction, matches (one of them famously a World Cup semifinal) have been decided by one team's players and/or coach misinterpreting the results table and settling for fewer runs than they in fact needed.

** There are those, of course, who argue that the whole of cricket is in fact a case of LoadsAndLoadsOfRules and it's difficult to deny... but Duckworth-Lewis is infamous even among those who understand everything else perfectly.

** There are those, of course, who argue that the whole of cricket is in fact a case of LoadsAndLoadsOfRules and it's difficult to deny... but Duckworth-Lewis is infamous even among those who understand everything else perfectly.

**to:**

* The Duckworth-Lewis Method was devised as a totally fair way to decide matches affected by rain. Unfortunately it's an extremely complex mathematical formula the results of which change every time a ball is bowled, a run is scored, basically every time anything at all happens. Since its introduction, matches (one of them famously a World Cup semifinal) have been decided by one team's players and/or coach misinterpreting the results table and settling for fewer runs than they in fact ~~needed.~~

**needed. There are those, of course, who argue that the whole of cricket is in fact a case of LoadsAndLoadsOfRules and it's difficult to deny... but Duckworth-Lewis is infamous even among those who understand everything else perfectly.

**

**Changed line(s) 99 (click to see context) from:**

* "Right-Of-Way" Another of those rules that are simple to explain, but complex to deal with. Simply put, you cannot attack into an existing attack, at least, not if you want the point. You must stop the incoming attack or remove the threat, then you can counter-attack. It's far, far more complicated, involving as it does questions like "what constitutes an existing attack?", "What constitutes "stopping the existing attack"?" "What qualifies as "removing the threat"?" and "What the hell just happened, it was all so fast..."

**to:**

* ~~"Right-Of-Way" ~~"Right-Of-Way": Another of those rules that are simple to explain, but complex to deal with. Simply put, you cannot attack into an existing attack, at least, not if you want the point. You must stop the incoming attack or remove the threat, then you can counter-attack. It's far, far more ~~complicated, ~~complicated in practice, involving as it does questions like ~~"what ~~"What constitutes an existing attack?", "What constitutes "stopping the existing attack"?" "What qualifies as "removing the threat"?" and "What the hell just happened, it was all so fast..."

**Changed line(s) 120,129 (click to see context) from:**

[[folder:Other]]

* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that are true no matter what:

## You can draw a straight line from any point to any other point.

## You can extend a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]

## You can describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]i.e, draw a circle using a compass[[/note]]

## All right angles equal one another.

## [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers If a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles]].

:: The first four are practically CaptainObvious level, but the fifth, called the Parallel postulate, is... not. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove it from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.

* While the study and practice of law is full of rules that are difficult to understand or remember, the Rule Against Perpetuities[[note]] “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest.”[[/note]] is notorious. The concept is that it forbids instruments (contracts, wills, and so forth) from tying up property for too long a time beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written, but is so difficult to apply that in 1961 the Supreme Court of California which held that it was not legal malpractice for an attorney to draft a will that inadvertently violated the rule against perpetuities.[[note]]Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d 583, 15 Cal. Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685 (1961).[[/note]]

[[/folder]]

* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that are true no matter what:

## You can draw a straight line from any point to any other point.

## You can extend a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]

## You can describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]i.e, draw a circle using a compass[[/note]]

## All right angles equal one another.

## [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers If a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles]].

:: The first four are practically CaptainObvious level, but the fifth, called the Parallel postulate, is... not. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove it from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.

* While the study and practice of law is full of rules that are difficult to understand or remember, the Rule Against Perpetuities[[note]] “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest.”[[/note]] is notorious. The concept is that it forbids instruments (contracts, wills, and so forth) from tying up property for too long a time beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written, but is so difficult to apply that in 1961 the Supreme Court of California which held that it was not legal malpractice for an attorney to draft a will that inadvertently violated the rule against perpetuities.[[note]]Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d 583, 15 Cal. Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685 (1961).[[/note]]

[[/folder]]

**to:**

* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that are true no matter what:

## You can draw a straight line from any point to any other point.

## You can extend a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]

## You can describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]i.e, draw a circle using a compass[[/note]]

## All right angles equal one another.

## [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers If a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles]].

:: The first four are practically CaptainObvious level, but the fifth, called the Parallel postulate, is... not. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove it from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.

* While the study and practice of law is full of rules that are difficult to understand or remember, the Rule Against Perpetuities[[note]] “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest.”[[/note]] is notorious. The concept is that it forbids instruments (contracts, wills, and so forth) from tying up property for too long a time beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written, but is so difficult to apply that in 1961 the Supreme Court of California which held that it was not legal malpractice for an attorney to draft a will that inadvertently violated the rule against perpetuities.[[note]]Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d 583, 15 Cal. Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685 (1961).[[/note]]

[[/folder]]

5th Aug '17 6:01:58 PM

**wingedcatgirl** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 121,127 (click to see context) from:**

* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that you can do or things that are true no matter what:

## To draw a straight line from any point to any point.

## To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]

## To describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]]

## That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal to other right angles formed on other lines[[/note]]

## [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles]].

:: Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove that fifth one (the Parallel postulate) from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.

## To draw a straight line from any point to any point.

## To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]

## To describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]]

## That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal to other right angles formed on other lines[[/note]]

## [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles]].

:: Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove that fifth one (the Parallel postulate) from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.

**to:**

* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are ~~things that you can do or ~~things that are true no matter what:

##~~To ~~You can draw a straight line from any point to any other point.

##~~To produce ~~You can extend a finite straight line continuously in a straight line ~~[[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, ~~[[note]]This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]

##~~To ~~You can describe a circle with any center and radius. ~~[[note]]You can ~~[[note]]i.e, draw a circle using a compass[[/note]]

##~~That all ~~All right angles equal one ~~another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal to other right angles formed on other lines[[/note]]~~

another.

## [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers~~That, if ~~If a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles]].

:: The first four are practically CaptainObvious level, but the fifth, called the Parallel postulate, is... not. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove~~that fifth one (the Parallel postulate) ~~it from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.

##

##

##

##

## [[TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers

:: The first four are practically CaptainObvious level, but the fifth, called the Parallel postulate, is... not. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove

This list shows the last 10 events of 278. Show all.