Most people I play against will often just say "pass my conflict" when they choose to pass a conflict, which is not how I interpreted the rules regarding passing conflicts. I haven't brought it up because it seems up to interpretation (not to mention it feels like sort of an obscure and non-intuitive rule), but I'd like to know where the community falls on the issue.

In page 20 of the RR it outlines how conflicts are declared, as seen below, and it gives you the option to pick one of two things. Either you can declare military or pass military, or you can declare political or pass political. Now, to me this indicates that those options are discrete. You must pick one and it must be known to both players which was chosen, and the player that passed is subsequently locked out of the conflict type they passed. However, everyone I've played against doesn't follow this line of thinking. What do you think? Should you declare which conflict type you pass, or is it left open?

You should declare which one you're passing.

Agreed, with one exception. Not should, must.

Next post finds the opposite right in the rules reference

Oh okay. That resolves that then. I shoulda read the rules better.

2 minutes ago, mplain said:

Well darn.

Wow that is really confusing. Looks like they are saying the exact opposite thing in different sections of the Reference.

I don't read it as contradicting.

Some of the rules in the RR reads like they're contradicting, even when they aren't, they're just poorly worded. Really needs a good copy editor who is familiar with exactly how the rules work.

29 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

Some of the rules in the RR reads like they're contradicting, even when they aren't, they're just poorly worded. Really needs a good copy editor who is familiar with exactly how the rules work.

I disagree they should only hire a copy editor who knows the ins and outs of one specific board game. They should still be more consistent though.

5 minutes ago, caseycheesecake said:

I disagree they should only hire a copy editor who knows the ins and outs of one specific board game. They should still be more consistent though.

I'm feeling this is a reference to something I don't get.

Well, a good copy editor who can take notes of these contradictions and has access to the design team to iron out the inconsistencies in the text. So they don't need to be totally familiar with the rules, but knowing them would help.

Changed my mind, the last sentence about passing on a specific opportunity is confusing. At least it's clear in the RR.

8 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Changed my mind, the last sentence about passing on a specific opportunity is confusing. At least it's clear in the RR.

I think it's the actual conflict opportunity they're referring to, rather than the type of conflict. For example, you can't pass your first conflict, then decide you want to take 2 conflict opportunities after your opponent's 2nd conflict. I suppose it's to distinguish from how passing actions works during an action window.

The confusing part is how they word the options for when a player has an opportunity to declare a conflict. It would be much clearer if worded something like:

Quote

When a player has an opportunity to declare a conflict, that player may:

◊ Declare a military conflict.

◊ Declare a political conflict.

◊ Pass the opportunity to declare a conflict.

If a specific conflict opportunity is passed, the player forfeits his or her right to use that opportunity this phase.