looks i was 3 minutes too late

oh wait quorum went up

Hmm, is this valid, though? “An Adventurer can Point Their Finger at an Adventurer, including idle Adventurers, other than themselves by paying 50 Merit and making a blog post that has “Pointing to X” as the title, with X being the name of an Adventurer.”

You can point at an idle player but can you perform the requisite action of naming them?

[Kevan] If we accept that this is the case, doesn’t this mean that it is possible to point at an Adventurer and name a different Adventurer in the post’s title?

I would argue that the sentence mentions idle Adventurers in the first clause so it’s implicit in the second clause.

If not (to continue my thought), we have to accept that whoever is named in the title is the Adventurer who is Pointed at, and therefore the selection of who is named in the title is subject to the same restrictions and exceptions as the selection of who is Pointed at.

What card said, essentially.

The rest of the Judas rule only cares about the name you put in the title, though, so no worries there.

The intention is clear and if the rule had said “that Adventurer” it would have been implicit enough. It just struck me as a distinctly separate clause, as written. Not going to contest it, though.

Yes, I will let it slide. I think it’s cool that card played it that way, even if his amendment to set it up wasn’t airtight.