If Rules decided, at the end of its current work on the action rules, to just keep the current rules but explain them better, this text -- or something close to it -- might well be what got adopted. That's a great strength.
Another great strength is how clearly this document highlights some of the pitfalls in the current action rules. Even I was making "1E Face" in the middle of the group actions entry, and that "number of cards in a uniform manner" rule is a true doozy. Yet that, or something quite close to it, appears to be the current rules of the game, and we're all just glossing it over.
The "post-resolution" window is essential and I'm glad to see it here. A proposal AllenGould made about a decade ago included the same concept, and rediscovering that proposal is what got me excited about messing around with actions. It's taken a long time, but I've also been sold on "suspends play means valid response to anything" as a sustainable path forward for suspends-play timing.
* If you are tasked with discarding multiple cards (e.g., Quark's Bar), but only have one card in your hand, you would discard that card.I'm not actually sure I agree with this (under current rules), but I found your proposal's way of handling and clarifying the issue helpful.
*If a player would but they don't have enough tactics left in their draw deck, you would still until you can't.
Thank you for your efforts!
Here is an attempted rewriteWhat would you do if Design instructed you to rewrite Energy Vortex -- on a template using up to four lines of gametext, max--with the dual goals of eliminating as much of its Glossary entry as possible while maintaining the closest gameplay possible?
I imagine getting to rewrite the card itself would make the Glossary entry much less difficult.
"We pledge our loyalty to the Glossary from now until death."
"Then receive this reward from the Glossary. May it keep you strong."