Blissful Agony

Ok, let's start from the other side.

Can't queue combats. That's the main idea. If you disagree with this one, it's easier to stop reading now, and say so

Now, suppose two players would actually play sup' BA. We'd be in a situation, during strike resolution, where we would have to have two combats start. They can't happen simultaneously, so someone would have to sequence them. One of them being the first, and the other being the second. I hope you see the trouble here. We now have queued combats (which, as stated several times, is forbidden).

If you think this state is OK, do let me know. I think it's not, as it introduces queued combats.

no I certainly don't think that's ok

I just don't think the 'metaphysics' of the card works like that and i'm interested why you can play a Sup BA on a Siren's lure action because that seems even more blatant 'combat is queued' than two sup BA's that haven't resolved.

[to make it easier I think Siren's Lure queued = BA already played at Superior as it seems like a sensible standardisation]

So your trouble isn't with BA at all, it simply is with Siren's Lure.

Re-read my previous example, and you'll realize that, at every point, once SL has been played, there would be a so-called "queued" combat. Generated from the play of SL.

Are you trying to say that I shouldn't allow the play of BA, because SL has been played?

Similar question: Should the combat resulting from a block after SL has been played still resolve (after all, there is a "queued" combat) ?

Similar question: If the action isn't blocked after SL has been played, should the Bum's Rush still resolve (after all, there is a "queued" combat) ?

What I'm interested in is knowing why you would refuse BA to generate a new combat when there was already one that was perfectly valid.

Pascal wrote:

Now, suppose two players would actually play sup' BA. We'd be in a situation, during strike resolution, where we would have to have two combats start. They can't happen simultaneously, so someone would have to sequence them. One of them being the first, and the other being the second. I hope you see the trouble here. We now have queued combats (which, as stated several times, is forbidden).

Why introduce a spurious false dichotomy? Nothing requires the second combat to be queued. You can just have it thrown away, as per [FZD 20120225] .

Other after combat effects are routinely thrown away when interrupted by something else sufficiently disruptive getting in the way. RTR 2002-05-01 and the earlier [TOM 10-MAY-1995]. We don't feel forced to remember the existence of Form of Mist's continue action effect following a Psyche!

So no, I don't see the trouble here. We are not in a situation where two combats have to start, because we have long-standing rulings explaining what happens - the acting Methuselah sequences two otherwise-simultaneous effects, and the extra combat is thrown away.