2.14 I'm not sure I like the current distinction between Keyword Traits and Keyword Abilities. Since keyword abilities are frequently referenced just as if they were keyword traits, doesn't it make more sense to think of keyword abilities as a subset of keyword traits? I.e., keyword abilities are traits with extra rules. Keyword traits aren't necessarily abilities. I just think this way because of cards that reference "your multiple attack" or "your reversal." (Not a huge issue.)

2.14.1.6 I would love to see Stance turned into a keyword ability. However, for the current rules (unless/until James decides to change it), it's exactly as it should be.

2.14.2.4 Are multiple copies still considered to be "placed" and _not_ "played" ? If so, there should be a 2.14.2.4.4 that says they are not played. Otherwise there should be a 2.14.2.4.4 that says they are considered played as soon as the multiple ability resolves.

2.14.2.7 This definition needs a line saying, "This ability is playable from the hand," because of the earlier rule about R's on attacks only being playable from the card pool.

Overall, I like the look and feel of this section. Keywords have never been clearer.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Noted.

2.14 - I don't think KWA should be a subset. They are different, with a different defintion.

2.14.1.6 - You and may others. Look for Set 16

2.14.2.7 - "R Reveal this card from your hand:" I think makes the request for a rule stating that this is playable from hand redundant.

Antigoth said:

Zhao Daiyu*'s E reads:

"E Discard 3 momentum: Ready this character. Playable while committed."

The "Playable while committed" is necessary even though the effect implies she must be committed. (She can't be readied if she's not committed, right?) Redundancy is a good thing in this case.

Just because the "Reveal this card from your hand" implies it works from your hand, doesn't mean it actually works from your hand. Remember, the earlier rule says R abilities on attacks can't be played from your hand _at all_. This means the game can never get past the bold "R" to even see what the cost is. There needs to be a direct statement that it is contradicting the rules, and is allowed to do so.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Dude...common.

You're putting walls up where they don't need to be.

If you're going to say "this wording doesn't work." and just give reasons why it doesn't work, then also take the time to suggest what you feel an approrpriate wording would be.

Also keep in mind items like 1.1, which you keep ignoring. Also contrast it with the instructions on the reversal step.

Take a look here, if you haven't recently. Tell me if it's an appropriate compromise:

new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp