you guys make no sense, because you're rule lawyering. you have to read the rules with some common sense and context.

for example step 7 of the combat phase says "All damage must be suffered before any critical damage may be suffered." a lawyer would tear this apart, because "all damage" "before any critical damage" implies that critical damage is not part of all damage. just nonsense. it's clear what the writer intended, if you don't start reading in a pedantic and purely literal sense.

You can not suffer critical damage before drawing that actual card, which is ironically for your statement, because drawing a damage card is … well suffering damage. And you do not suffer critical damage at all when you do not draw a card, because against shields crit are normal damage.

I am not sure if I really can follow your logic, heck I am not even sure if you are applying logic at all or just wishful thinking. Common sense is just the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. So I do what the rules say, especially when they are so elegant as in this case.

you guys make no sense, because you're rule lawyering. you have to read the rules with some common sense and context.

for example step 7 of the combat phase says "All damage must be suffered before any critical damage may be suffered." a lawyer would tear this apart, because "all damage" "before any critical damage" implies that critical damage is not part of all damage. just nonsense. it's clear what the writer intended, if you don't start reading in a pedantic and purely literal sense.

>complains about rules-lawyers

>completely fails at rule-lawyering

bruh...

No point in trolling, really.