"As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

Since the rulebook explains its existence in very small words, yes, it's the fault of people not reading the rulebook if they don't know about it.

That's not how it works in the real world. If the vast majority of the players don't know the inner workings of a very specific and unnecessary rule, it's the fault of the rule being shit, obscure or just generally unrequired. Or a combination of those.

Not that of the players.

That said, we don't need a "inbetween as played and replace" window because all it does is make the game worse and less enjoyable while fixing exactly zero problems.

Izaak wrote:

That's not how it works in the real world. If the vast majority of the players don't know the inner workings of a very specific and unnecessary rule, it's the fault of the rule being shit, obscure or just generally unrequired. Or a combination of those.

There aren't any inner workings. It's right there in the rulebook. Play, cancel, replace. No inner workings. Play, cancel, replace. It's that simple.

To know the rules of a game, you actually have to read them. It really is that simple. For people for whom that is too hard, no amount of change will help - they'll never know, because they don't read them.

Izaak wrote:

That said, we don't need a "inbetween as played and replace" window because all it does is make the game worse and less enjoyable while fixing exactly zero problems.

The problem that it addresses has already been explained. That you don't agree with it doesn't mean that other people don't view it as a problem, and one that warranted fixing.

The problem of card cancellation slowing the game down is already embedded (and has been since Jyhad, given Sudden Reversal, at least - DI obviously made it a bit more annoying). Slowing the game down at every card play is annoying, and can lead to all sorts of friction - particularly when close to a time limit.

The more effects you can stuff into the cancellation window, the more annoying it is, and the more it can be dragged out. So the solution chosen was to limit it to cancels and wakes, and no replacements.

You may not have viewed it as a problem. Other people did. You may have chosen a different solution, but that does not mean that this solution doesn't address a specific problem - that of timely game flow, rather than tapping the Barrens, then Dreams, then... before deciding you can't cancel a card.


Simply beating your chest about a player's right to refuse to read the rulebook because words are hard, and to deny the existence of problems that other people had (which is why the issues came up), is just weird.

No, it's because most of them are old players that read the rules 15 years ago, play within themselves with house rules or were taught the rules by someone who was already wrong.
We have "young" players in our playgroups, and they know the rules.

*I* know the rules.

And I don't want to go explain Joe Casual this rule at a tournament because he replaced his Vessel before telling which Blood Doll he wanted to burn and his potential target is being obnoxious about it.

I don't want to have to explain why you *can* cycle a Wake to fish for a Telepathic Misdirection, but you *cannot* cycle a Wake to fish for a Touch of Clarity.

Why not? Because it doesn't make sense. And both are a result of a ruling invented to prevent DI-fishing.

DI-fishing?