My opponent restores Student Archaelogist. She reads:

Response: After Student Archaelogist is restored , draw a card. Then, each player chooses and discards a card from his hand.

I have no cards in hand. So I don't have to do the second sentence. My opponent proposes that because we can't each discard that means that part of the phrase doesn't happen. In other words if we can't BOTH discard, then neither of us has to discard.

Actually the emphasis was on "chooses" - since I can't choose a card the second sentence fails. Sort of like Byakhee Attack - if you can't choose two cards you don't have to choose any.

What do you think? Instinct tells me that the "each" term effectively clones the last sentence so that player 1 does the sentence and then player 2 does the sentence (and so on if multiplayer).

On the other hand, if it does not clone itself, then I guess the Byakhee Attack logic works????

Waoh !! I don't understand your question at all, but I'll try to share what I thought reading your questions :

Response: After Student Archaelogist is restored, draw a card. Then, each player chooses and discards a card from his hand.

Why don't you draw a card once restored ?? In case you don't have a card in hand, that's strictly not related to the effect of the student, as he gave you a "hand" with 1 card !!

I have no cards in hand. So I don't have to do the second sentence

I don't understand what you're saying here... You draw then you discard ... What the difference if your hand was about to 0 before, as you just drawn a card ? Yes, in literral English, you're not able to choose ... but most of the time you play this card, you can.

Speaking about the "Choose" wording, this term is to be taken as "pick" "take" or any other world that means that you gotta select a card from one environment (discard, hand or so). You're still able to make a selection, but your choice's rate is near to O.

But the effect is still playable.

I totally agree with the "each" terms , like you describe it. It means that the active player has to do it first, then it's the second player who has to do it.

Perhaps I was unclear with who was playing which character.

I mean when the opponent to the Student Archaelogist has no cards in hand. Yes, clearly the player who restores SA will draw a card so can satisfy the second part. But the opponent may have no cards in hand.

OK !!!!

I do undestand your point now !!

So, In case someone (the attacking player) has the Student, he resolves the effect fully. If his opponent (the defending player who is 2nd on the list) has no hand (O card in hand), he would'nt be able to fulfil the effects of this response, but it takes places, as there is no "if able" clausis like with the Byakhee..

The student as the "then" clausis, which means "Any time two effects are linked by the word "then," the first effect must resolve in order for the second effect to occur." If you do restore the character and draw a card, no problem with the second part ...

It's the opposite of a "If Able" clausis, as , with this claussis"If there is no legal target during resolution, there is no effect.".

In this case, the active player is able to do the effect, even if the opponent cannot !! Don't forget it is a response, you're not forced to trigger it if you don't want to !!

So even though it says "each player discards", it is OK to resolve this as "some players discard and some do not."; as though it had said "each player discards, if able"?

I would say that because it's after a "then", it's an aftereffect that happens regardless and can't fizzle as nothing is contingent on it going off. So in other words, I'd say one player would have to discard even if the other player had an empty hand, yes.