On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Just because R2193 does not use the word "recordkeepor" does not mean >> that the CotC is not a recordkeepor of monsters. > > I think it does, "recordkeepor" being a rule-defined term that the > rules define only for assets.
I think it's disputable whether R2166 can be construed as defining "recordkeepor", especially as we've been using the term since well before that rule existed. But what the hey, let's have some fun with this. I throw Ivan Hope CXXVII into the chokey. -root
