[JeBuS]

So after a recent local game with @sevencrdspud and a conversation about some deck tweaks and another conversation about rules interactions, we may have discovered a janky piece of 1E tech, but we weren't entirely 100% certain on what takes precedence, Glossary or gametext. In particular, there are some newer virtual cards which maybe could override some very old Glossary entry text (which is possibly just restating a general rule from the rulebook in a different way?).

I have a question I am going to be a bit vague about, because I'd like this thing to work at least once for me in a local gig (cuz I like the crazy 1E stuff, even if it doesn't win me any games).

Here's the scenario:
• The Glossary has an entry for Card-A and it says something like "you can't do X to this card". (X being a thing you normally could do with this sort of card.)
• Card-B says "you can do X to a group of cards". (That group of cards includes Card-A.)

Which wins?
Can I do it because Card-B says I can? ("Golden rule"?)
Or can I not do it because Card-B refers to a group of cards while the Glossary entry is specific to Card-A? ("Specificity rule"?)

[Hoss-Drone]

Trying to TMW in Sybok? I still don't think rules has a sufficient answer for me on that one yet.

[JeBuS]

Trying to TMW in Sybok? I still don't think rules has a sufficient answer for me on that one yet.

No, that's not my scenario. In my scenario, Card-A doesn't actually have any gametext which limits the "action of X". It's the Glossary that does (which I believe is simply restating a more general rule). Meanwhile, Card-B has gametext which says it enables "action of X" on a group of cards which includes Card-A.