Posted by TheMeehan on July 15, 2002 at 15:08:06:
In Reply to: Re: Expanding the Canon Vote posted by daShrink on July 15, 2002 at 10:36:40:
: First off, after reading the forward I got, then rummaging through some archives, then rereading the forward I got, I have to tell you, there has never been a meeting of the minds on what constitutes "plain vanilla hunter," and I doubt seriously that very many posters, former and otherwise, would agree with your definition.
Fair enough. I'll admit the definition is both very limited and very old. OTOH, I can't recall anyone ever offering an alternative, either. The definitions may very well need to change, that's sort of implied in the post (I would think). HtR's got a lot of things published since I first put those definitions together, and I don't think it's ever really been discussed since then. I will say that the list I rattled off, is to the best of my knowledge, officially canon (actually I think HtN is in there as well), making it Vanilla Hunter. As for what now constitutes Pure Vanilla Hunter aside from the core rules, I don't know.
On to the meat of the issue:
: I think you're making things entirely too complex.
Quite possible. I do have a tendency to do that. :)
: The option not offered would be that everything WW has seen fit to publish under the banner of Hunter would be fair game, with the overriding caveat of no pissing in anyone else's pool.
Grr. I *knew* I had missed something. [almost goes and changes/reposts the vote] Wait, isn't that already covered under the "Invisible" option? Granted, people have to check every one, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing, as they'd be more likely to think about it.