Hi there, i was wondering if someone knew the correct interpretation to the "obstructed" rule. Just for clarity sake ill copy the relevant section of the rulebook:
THE EVENT CARD OPTION
After a player has selected one of his orders and revealed it, he may choose to draw an Event card instead of executing the specific ability of that order. That is, when taking this option, the player removes his order token from the board (returning it to his play area) without executing its ability, and instead simply draws an Event card from the Event card deck.
OBSTRUCTED ORDERS
A player may only execute one of his orders if one is available (i.e., visible) on the top of an order stack. If a player cannot execute an order because all his orders on the board are covered up by opponentsĀ“ orders, such player is said to be obstructed . when this happens. he draws one Event card (following the rules under "the Event Card Option" on the previous page) and play continues with the player on his left.
My interpretation (wich for some reason is minority in my play table) is that since the player cannot take, show and remove the order (because its obstructed) he should get the event card for free (thus gaining a small advantage for having to wait longer to act).
However it is also possible to understand from this text that he has to choose one of his orders (if he happens to have more than one) and then loose it by exchanging it for an event card, per a somewhat forced use of "THE EVENT CARD OPTION".
Please let me know if there is any oficial source for such interpretation, i know that its mainly a common sense issue, but im losing the war here.