2.8 "Abilities on committed cards may not be used unless otherwise stated." Should this say, "may not be played unless otherwise stated" ? Continuous abilities can still be "used" right?

2.8.1 "Cards that are in out of play zones, the card pool, or are attached to other cards do not have a readiness state and cannot be committed or readied." Actually, cards in the card pool DO have readiness state and CAN be committed and readied. How else would Egyptian Temple work?

2.9.0.4 - 2.9.0.7 These are good, but at least a few are missing. There needs to be a rule about License-specific abilities (e.g. "Streetfighter E:"). There needs to be a rule about Vital Statistic-specific abilities (e.g. ""G:F" E:").

2.9.2.2 "During an attack, only Enhances printed on the current attack, printed on cards in a player’s staging area, or Actions with E abilities played from the hand can be used." What about face-up cards in momentum with E abilities that say, "Only playable from momentum" ? According to this rule, they can never be played, because they are not on the current attack, in the staging area, or on an Action in the hand.

2.9.2.6 is followed by an unnecessary carriage return. That is, there is a quadruple-space instead of a double-space between 2.9.2.6 and 2.9.2.7

2.9.3.7 was a bit confusing, but once I got it I realized it is awesome. This is for things like *Felicia* and Waterfall's Momentum. Great rule. (:

2.12.2 "Costs may only be paid using cards controlled by the player wishing to play the ability." How does this parse with abilities on the old R. Mika cards with costs of "Ready 1 of your opponent's committed foundations" ?

2.13.3 "2.13.3 If effects are connected together by the wording “and then”, “then”, or sentences starting with the wording “Then,” these effects are linked to the effect before them. If the first effect cannot be completed in its entirety, then the linked effect will not happen." This one still bugs me. What if an ability reads: "E: Effect One. Then Effect Two. Effect Three." Is Effect Three linked to Effect One, even though it doesn't have the "Then" beginning?

2.13.6 "If an effect would result in a number being divided by 0, it is instead considered 0." Grammar correction. "It" has an unclear antecedent. It would be more clear to say, "...divided by 0, the result is considered to be 0."

2.13.10 "“The there is a non attack" in the example. Should this be, "If there is a non-attack" ?

2.13.11 If an effect states to immediately destroy a card or turn a card face down, once that effect has effect has

Needs one less "effect has".

Good catch! Sorry I missed it. (:

ARMed_PIrate said:

1.1 When a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card’s text takes precedence. (Unless specifically discussed within these rules.)

ARMed_PIrate said:

1.1 When a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card’s text takes precedence. (Unless specifically discussed within these rules.)

ARMed_PIrate said:

1.1 When a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card’s text takes precedence. (Unless specifically discussed within these rules.)

In all three of the above instances you are citing specific cards that go and break normal game rules.

The purpose of this document is not to walk players through playing every card.
It's to teach folks how to play the game, and give a clear framework to base rulings off of for more complicated interations.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Sucks to be effect 3.

Re: Various grammar & Wording notations - Noted, and will be reviewed.

Antigoth said:

I can maybe buy that Egyptian Temple implies that (while in play) it gives foundations in the card pool a readiness state. But I think it's odd that the rule explicitly says they have no readiness state, then another card comes along and says you can commit them.

Antigoth said:

But there is nothing on face-up attack E's in momentum that directly contradicts the rules I mentioned, so 1.1 isn't applicable. 1) They can only be played from momentum (could easily be read as a limiter, not an expansion). 2) They can't be played since they're not printed on the current attack. 3) Can't overrides can.

The fact that they can be played from momentum doesn't change the fact that they're not the current attack, they're not in the staging area, and they're not actions. An exception (probably a subrule) should be made, possibly along the lines of, "During an attack, Enhances printed on cards in other zones may be played only if they specifically state they can be played from those zones. E.g., an Enhance that states, 'Only playable while face-up in your momentum,' would be playable even though it is not on the current attack."

Antigoth said:

I suppose I can buy that it applies here. I would say the contradiction is implied, rather than direct, but the contradiction is there.

Antigoth said:

Ahhh. I thought the purpose was to obsolete the rules arbiters as much as possible, so that you guys wouldn't have to work so hard. I'm not being snide. I think this would be a really important purpose. Every time you/Tag/Gou has to answer a question that's been asked before, you're essentially spending time that could have been saved if the answer was apparent in a collected place like the AR.

Antigoth said:

Erm. That didn't answer the question. Is Effect Three linked to Effect One or not? And is there a way to make that clear within the rule or a subrule?

I know some will think I'm being too nitpicky here, but I think we've already established that nitpicking is pretty much my shtick. (It's probably my upbringing, combined with three years working Quality Assurance.)

New one:

2.12 This section should have a subrule explaining that "Commit" (without any further specifics) means "Commit this card." For a foundation, "Commit 1 foundation" or "Commit X foundations" can use this card to pay the cost, but not if there is also a "Commit" (this card) cost.

ARMed_PIrate said:

This I can dance to.

The other stuff I have to say "Really?"

and wait for Omar/Tag to wade in.

ARMed_PIrate said:

All due respect here, but I'm really surprised you don't see the clear-cut Golden Rule case in Egyptian Temple. Momentum didn't explicitly have a ready/committed state until *Yun-Seong* either - though there was a card that went faceup to momentum with a commit ability in SC01, it sucked and nobody really noticed it. When *Yun-Seong* came out we got tons of people asking the same question over and over - "does ur momentums readi durin ur readi stepz?!"

Thankfully the TR already covered this because the ready step was defined as the step when you "ready all your cards" not just "in your staging area" or anything more explicit.

I can't really think of a lot of other great Golden Rule examples off the top of my head but there have been a couple... Finesse is a good one, because in theory you should never be able to play its response because its trigger occurs after you've already lost. Yeah the card says you don't lose but you've already lost. That's the purpose of the Golden Rule.

ARMed_PIrate said:

That could be taken into consideration but how you can say there's nothing that contradicts the rules on those attacks is surprising, since obviously an Enhance that says "only playable while this attack is face-up in your momentum" could never, ever be played according to the rules. Hence the contradiction of the rules and invocation of the Golden Rule.

ARMed_PIrate said:

It doesn't have to be spelled out in glowing neon letters for it to apply.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Unfortunately even with other games that have seemingly airtight rules most of the time, there still needs to be some kind of Q&A system in place.

I don't think we'll ever be obsoleted, but I don't mind.

Besides, not everyone's going to scour through said documentation every time they're unsure about said rules interaction, especially if they don't know where to start, so a Q&A board like this one allows people who aren't as familiar with the rules to get help from people who... are.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Using abstract wording tends to make a question like that more difficult to answer. I'd use a more down to earth example.

F Commit: Discard 1 card. Then draw 1 card. Ready 1 asset.

I would say if you can't discard the 1 card, you won't draw the card (e.g. if you play the ability with no hand)... but you'd still get to ready the asset.

Except, according to reply 13 , if you don't do part one, you don't do part two or three regardless of "then"s.

2.9.0.9.1 If an ability with an “Only playable” restriction is negated or cancelled, it has still been played/activated, and may not be attempted again.

Is this one suppose to say "Only playable once per turn" because what would the differance between a "Only playable if... yadda yadda" and just any normal effect be? And maybe it should say something like may not be attempted again "for the rest of the turn" or "this E step" etc.

aslum said:

There's no target involved with "discard 1 card", unlike with "your attack gets..."

JDub said:

2.9.0.9.1 is referencing cards outlined in 2.9.0.9 There are many different "Only Playable" restrictions such as:

• Only playable once per turn.
• Only playable once per game.
• Only playable if...
• etc.

The rules are really long as it is, and rather then trying to cite each specific instance on every card, all of them were rolled up into 2.9.0.9

Antigoth said:

But what I was saying is why is it only saying "only playable" abilities may not be played again if negated when that's how it is for all abilities (and I'm not sure if it even covers that? I haven't read though it all yet but I haven't come across something that says "if an E is negated you may not use it again" etc). I was confused on the way it is worded because it made it seem like it had to be something that said "only playable once per turn" because of the whole "may not be attempted again" part.

JDub said:

1) Please finish reading

2) It's specifically for things like Starter Abyss. You played it once, it was negated, sucks to be you.