*sighs*Feel free to start all of your posts this way. I immediately start reading your logical rebuttal rather than trying to convince myself to ignore somethings snarky.
You can read it that way if you like. I image it more as a professor's sigh upon realizing that this is his ninth year of dealing with college senors that walk into his class thinking we only use 10% of our brains.
Aka, It's the sigh of exasperation over how people still humor a subject.
Do any of them say "disregard that first errata's primary source text paragraph. Use this one instead"?
When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.
ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).
Through to be honest, the RC's entry is really just a better explained copy of the point the Errara was trying to get across. Like in a single given book the specific entry of something trumps the table or short summery of it. And like when it comes to the basic general rules on Spells check the RC (formally the PHB), or really any up to date rules source relevant to the topic, instead of something that has nothing to do with it like the Monster Manual on Spells or whatever Magic Fang has to say about how Unarmed Strike actually works.
Except the RC and later Errata entries are not as broad worded allowing complete fucktards to totally misread things to illogically make a really bad point. See, what this entire thread honesty boils down to is if you are presented with two interpretations and enter a debate about them, then someone comes along with official game rules from an official rule source published by the official creators of the game on the official website and says you're wrong. How should you respond?
And people like you think an ad-hominem attack over the competency of WotC's "Sage" or "CustService" is a perfectly valid reason to discredit a rules source and ignore it. Overlooking the fact that not a single CustService entry can actually be proven to be from them opposed to some guy just claiming they did (which is really odd when you think about it). You are not training new people to critically think, you are not training them to read the rules or ask for opinions, you are encouraging them to bitch their way to success on assumption that they are always right and merely need to scream loud enough to prove it no matter how self defeating or illogical the outcome is.
Like the silly notation of Primary Source, which doesn't actually imply the FAQ or even the Miniature's Handbook can't update the rules through it's often claimed as such (so swift actions don't exist, good luck). In all actually the Errata really claims is that whatever is primary leads. So for example an entry that updates the old rules would become the primary entry on the updated rules (*headexplodes*). The idea that nothing can trump the original first-printed entry purely stems from misreading the example text that mentions checking the PHB instead of the DMG for Spells, designating the PHB as the primary source, that was wrote back when there was only three books to begin with. Now I know you don't believe me so go ahead and take the moment to scroll up and check. v1.1 is just v1.0 minus the example and both of them without the example text don't actually support this bad interpretation,the concept is entirely based on focused on the example and requires you to not accept any other explanation WotC has offered.
Alternatively you could attempt to maneuver some other excuse, I can't really cover them all in one post and I really don't feel like covering a bunch either. But maybe you want to create the stance that a rule's source must declare it's self, ie Errata does and the FAQ does not, as your method to ignore one but not another. Well Eberron Campaign Setting didn't say as much either so by that definition that's not a rules source either and that's not the only line of products you've claimed at invalid. As a second shout, or really the third counting the actual Errata text, maybe you want to assert that the FAQ is just a guideline and play that rule 0 card. Well all the rules are a guideline when you get down to it and we have a term when you deviate from them and it's called "houserules", so is the debate taking place in the official "guidelines" or your houserules? And so on for pretty much every self-defending excuse you can think of, the repercussions of drawing a bad line in the sand to exclude one thing causes your house of cards to topple because when you've built it out of fallacies there is always a way to prove how it's illogical it is or how stupid it can appear to someone else.
And all the while I'm just sitting here wondering why everyone has to be a self-entitled hateful dbag slinging bullshit about how they can ignore something that proves them wrong. And the funny thing is if you ask them why or point out any problems in their logic, they look at you like you're mad for thinking such and complain about how attacking or belittling them doesn't invalidate their points because the irony of their situation created by their double standards is totally lost to them. To them they totally have a misinterpreted over-empathized and outdated example as proof they are right and to them that's all that matters.
And to them I'm the crazy one totally wrapped up in my BS theories about what I think common sense is, and the only thing you've "read" out of this entire post is how hypocritical I am to yell profanities at you even as I claim you shouldn't be a dbag and how you think I'm saying ignore the Errata entry entirely. So as you already are, pay no nevermind to trying to understand the idea that's being poorly said and focus on that plan to scream about how you're already right in whatever you are thinking about now.
I honestly couldn't expect anything less, through for some reason I often do.