"As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Izaak wrote:

Look at your hand. Can you cancel the card play using the cards in your hand? Yes, then say so. No, then there's no decision to be made. Pretty simple, and facilitated by banning all replacements in the 'as played' window.

Huh?

I don't see how this correlates with the "as played window".

You don't replace cards in the 'as played' window. Therefore, you know whether you can cancel a card by looking at your hand. You don't have a "If I play this Forced and replace it, will I get... therefore...." indecision points.

1.6.1.1 tells you that replacing cards comes after the 'as played' window. The 2004 ruling explicitly states you can only use cards that are in your hand at the moment the card was played (banning Barrens et al).

I find it interesting that you first blame people for not reading past the end of a paragraph and the continue to do exactly that in your response to my post. The "as played" timing window is a rather elaborate fix for a problem that is being blown way out of proportion.

In fact, this whole ruling is basically there because DI exists. Sure, it hits cards like Touch of Clarity as well but that's, again, not required. I'd suggest you go around a tournament and ask if playing wake - replace with Touch of Clarity - play Touch of Clarity to cancel Voter Captivation is legal. I'd genuinly surprised if even half the people get it correct.

You can't blame people for not reading/knowing the (entire, correct) rules, if the rules are shit.

Any arbitrary set of rules could be workable. When people apparently aren't reading the rules that are there, and are instead relying on their tingling spidey-senses to let them intuit what the rules are, it doesn't really matter - all the people who currently aren't reading the rules will continue to not read the rules.

If the rules were actually easy to understand and didn't introduce unnessecary phases and timing windows (see also the recent Disarm vs. Pocket out of Time discussion) then less people would "not read the rules".

If I don't have a Rewind Time in hand (and I'm not even playing ), can I play a wake when a Master card is played (to cycle the wake)? It seems a little odd that I can play a reaction when there's no action, and wake doesn't specify that it can be played when there's no action (like Rewind Time specifies).

Mias

nc-italy wrote:

Ok, then let's go on ignoring evidence and let's keep on the game with an huge amount of convoluted rulings

The proposed changes are no less convoluted. They're simply an arbitrary re-ordering of how things work into a different fashion. You then get a whole new set of questions about the interactions, and people complaining that they're equally convoluted.

Having cards interrupt each other is fundamentally messy, however you do it. That you have decided your version is a mess that you happen to like in no way means that everyone shares that view.