[JeBuS]

But if the "Suspends Play" rule is hanging its proverbial hat on the "at any time" rule, and the "at any time" rule says they can't play between start / end-of-turn actions... How is it supposed to work?

[pfti]

It doesnt hang off the "at any time rule" it is just an unfortunate use of the same phrase.

It doesnt say the suspends play cards plays at the same time as a card that plays at any time.

it says at any time in the play phase. IF you read the words in context, it is clear they are talking about different things, but as usual, you are being deliberately obtuse.

[JeBuS]

It doesnt hang off the "at any time rule" it is just an unfortunate use of the same phrase.

It doesnt say the suspends play cards plays at the same time as a card that plays at any time.

Well, we have a game term that's being used in a rule. Why wouldn't the reader assume it's relevant?

it says at any time in the play phase. IF you read the words in context, it is clear they are talking about different things, but as usual, you are being deliberately obtuse.

That seems uncalled for.

[pfti]

It doesnt hang off the "at any time rule" it is just an unfortunate use of the same phrase.

It doesnt say the suspends play cards plays at the same time as a card that plays at any time.

Well, we have a game term that's being used in a rule. Why wouldn't the reader assume it's relevant?

Because they are reading entire sentences, not just words. In the same way the game assumes you know the difference between computer data and comander data even though they yse the same word

[JeBuS]

Right. But "at any time" the rules is relevant to the "suspends play" rules, as evidenced by them being quoted in this thread, right?

[pfti]

Right. But "at any time" the rules is relevant to the "suspends play" rules, as evidenced by them being quoted in this thread, right?

Nope: They are quoted in this thread because you asked about them. Not because they are relevant to the suspends play rules

If i asked about interrupt card types because the suspends play rule says "may interrupt" that does not make the interrupt rules relevant to this conversation about suspends play

[pfti]

There are lots of times the phrase "at any time" is referenced in the rules where it is not explicitly refering to the rule that is about cards that play "at any time."

Is it bad word choice maybe, but context clues (including lots of quotes and italics) get us around that.

[JeBuS]

There are lots of times the phrase "at any time" is referenced in the rules where it is not explicitly refering to the rule that is about cards that play "at any time."

Is it bad word choice maybe, but context clues (including lots of quotes and italics) get us around that.

Except, those quote marks aren't used consistently in the rules. Most of the time, they are not used, it seems like. More often than not, the quotes only seem to imply that the card text says it. The rest of the time, it seems like "at any time" is just kinda out there. At which point, if I know that there is a rule specifically about "at any time", then why wouldn't I apply it?

[pfti]

There are lots of times the phrase "at any time" is referenced in the rules where it is not explicitly refering to the rule that is about cards that play "at any time."

Is it bad word choice maybe, but context clues (including lots of quotes and italics) get us around that.

Except, those quote marks aren't used consistently in the rules. Most of the time, they are not used, it seems like. More often than not, the quotes only seem to imply that the card text says it. The rest of the time, it seems like "at any time" is just kinda out there. At which point, if I know that there is a rule specifically about "at any time", then why wouldn't I apply it?

Yes the rules and glossary could be cleaned up. But you are ignoring my point about context mattering. e.g. my point about interupts. I agreed that it may be bad, but I am mearly saying the rules are not related and unless we are being pedantic we dont need to argue that they are

[JeBuS]

Yes the rules and glossary could be cleaned up. But you are ignoring my point about context mattering. e.g. my point about interupts. I agreed that it may be bad, but I am mearly saying the rules are not related and unless we are being pedantic we dont need to argue that they are

That's fine for you to say. But simply stating that they aren't related isn't enough, is it?

I can't tell you how long I've played with the start / end-of-turn being sacrosanct, but I've basically always done so, and pointed these rules out to others when playing. Aside from some folks going "huh!", there's never been an argument that these "at any time" actions should be allowed then.

So what I'm saying is, "Hey, long-time player here. These rules seem related in an obvious way. Other plays haven't argued against it." So maybe it's not just a matter of "Read better, dood."

[pfti]

Yes the rules and glossary could be cleaned up. But you are ignoring my point about context mattering. e.g. my point about interupts. I agreed that it may be bad, but I am mearly saying the rules are not related and unless we are being pedantic we dont need to argue that they are

That's fine for you to say. But simply stating that they aren't related isn't enough, is it?

I can't tell you how long I've played with the start / end-of-turn being sacrosanct, but I've basically always done so, and pointed these rules out to others when playing. Aside from some folks going "huh!", there's never been an argument that these "at any time" actions should be allowed then.

So what I'm saying is, "Hey, long-time player here. These rules seem related in an obvious way. Other plays haven't argued against it." So maybe it's not just a matter of "Read better, dood."

Again, could it be more clear? sure

But you assuming that rules are related does not mean that they are.

And being a long time player does not excuse not reading the rules. E.g. the number of people who play opponents choice wrong is huge despite the fact that the rule has been explicit for a long time.

You made a wrong assumption, so have in other cases. But rather than argue the rules are broken (when they are not) just accept it and move on or suggest clarity, but dont just keep reiterating that it doesnt make sense based on your feelings that it should be some other way

[JeBuS]

I'm not arguing that your interpretation doesn't make sense. I'm arguing that both interpretations make sense. Which is bad for the game. It's another of those cases where different groups of people are playing the same rules differently. And without the blue text clarification, it will continue.

[JeBuS]

You know, I got the weirdest sense of deja vu. So... Here's the same thread from a year ago, without a blue text:
viewtopic.php?f=310&t=46078

[geraldkw]

This looks like a job for The Turn Arrow! https://imgur.com/a/2dXFFt9



(I agree that each turn segment technically involves each player taking turns to act (or pass), and that each turn segment technically ends when both players pass, just like the facility phase.)

Thanks this is a useful reference. I might add "Turn a hidden agenda face up" to the arrow in the middle two sections because even though it's an "at any time" action people may forget that.

[pfti]

You know, I got the weirdest sense of deja vu. So... Here's the same thread from a year ago, without a blue text:
viewtopic.php?f=310&t=46078

So people told you and made a graphic, but you still dont know (and spend this thread not realizing you had this conversation)
That doesnt seem like a rules problem

Blue text is for when rules need revising, not when people misunderstand them