Pre-Range

Changing "before range is determined" to something else doesn't solve the issue.
I've seen plenty of new players playing Taste of Vitae before using presses.
Taste of Vitae says "at the end of the round". Maybe it would be clearer for them if it stated "after the press step".

Please note this is getting away a little form what I am arguing. I am generally fine with the combat steps because they are outlined clearly in the Detailed Play Summary. My issue is the language used in the rulebook that seems to contradict how the combat steps actually work. There is a clear difference between playing something and deciding whether or not to play something. If the rulebook said "Note: Effects that are played "at the end of the round" must be played after the acting minion decides whether or not to play a press," I would have an issue. Since this text does not exist, I don't have an issue.

Do you see the issue? Players get confused if we use before step X (such as "before range is determined"). But players get confused too if we don't use "after step X".

Yeah, but at least there is no contradictory text in the rulebook about deciding whether or not to play something for end of round effect.

Furthermore, there's a contradiction between having more detailed rules and having more simple rules. The longer the rules, the harder it is for new players to remember everything.

That's what the Detailed Play Sumary and rulings are for. Those should be written for people who know how to play the game.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Easy. I assure you I do not intend to do anything that you are accusing above. I am just pointing out that the rulebook doesn't consider a potential audience of new players.

From the grammar used, and language, above, I a now fairly certain that either
a) you are definitely NOT a native nor fluent speaker of English.
OR
b) you have a sloppy approach to logic and strictness of grammatical usage
Either of those would lead to you making errors in interpretation when reading the rules.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

If the rulebook said "Note: Effects that are played "at the end of the round" must be played after the acting minion decides whether or not to play a press," I would have an issue. Since this text does not exist, I don't have an issue.

The problem here is not with the rule, but with you most likely not understanding the meaning of the words involved. Decide, as used here, means to make a choice from a number of alternatives.
"Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect."
Again, I cannot stress the emphasised text enough, read the determine range rule with that foremost in your mind.
"Note: Effects that are played "before range is determined" must be played before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a manuever at the start of this phase."
In other words, after the acting player has DECIDED to not play any pre range effects, he HAS to, according to 1.6.1.5, pass the other player the opportunity to play pre range cards, as per the rules. Which is clear, and explicit.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Yeah, but at least there is no contradictory text in the rulebook about deciding whether or not to play something for end of round effect.

There is no contradiction regarding it, you are simply choosing to ignore 1.6.1.5 Again, using the rulebook to teach anyone any game is usually a bad idea, especially for more complex games.

Lastly, my apologis, it was TheLich that used an ad hominem attack, not you

From the grammar used, and language, above, I a now fairly certain that either
a) you are definitely NOT a native nor fluent speaker of English.
OR
b) you have a sloppy approach to logic and strictness of grammatical usage
Either of those would lead to you making errors in interpretation when reading the rules.

Actually, I'm a native English speaker and I make a living in publishing as an editor. My employer would disagree with you on both points. What is happening is I have very little experience with the game, whereas you seem to have a lot of experience. I therefore am going to read the rulebook more literally than you would. For example, you have no problem connnecting the offending text to how sequencing works. I did not make that connection immediately. My reading is likely more in line with how a newer player will read the rulebook.

The problem here is not with the rule, but with you most likely not understanding the meaning of the words involved.

Correct. That is what I am arguing. The words should change.

In other words, after the acting player has DECIDED to not play any pre range effects, he HAS to, according to 1.6.1.5, pass the other player the opportunity to play pre range cards, as per the rules. Which is clear, and explicit.

This is all fine. I don't have an issue with the sequencing section in the rulebook. My issue is with the text in the combat section that may be interpreted by some as contradicting it.

There is no contradiction regarding it, you are simply choosing to ignore 1.6.1.5 Again, using the rulebook to teach anyone any game is usually a bad idea, especially for more complex games.

Fair enough. But, I assure you I am not ignoring the rule. I am just reading the offending text more literally than you are. In my reading of it, there is a contradiction in that the text intimates that the acting player can decide something to stop something else form happening, which contradicts the sequencing rules you cited. Because other people besides myeself has interpreted it this way, I am confident there is likely a problem with how the text is wordrd. We can change 4 words make it clearer. I am not arguing that the rules need changing or anything.

Lastly, my apologis, it was TheLich that used an ad hominem attack, not you

Cool. Thanks for having this discussion with me!

TwoRazorReign wrote:

In other words, after the acting player has DECIDED to not play any pre range effects, he HAS to, according to 1.6.1.5, pass the other player the opportunity to play pre range cards, as per the rules. Which is clear, and explicit.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

This is all fine. I don't have an issue with the sequencing section in the rulebook. My issue is with the text in the combat section that may be interpreted by some as contradicting it.

May, yes, but is not, by most. And if you are saying that the issue is that the LATER rule seems to override the EARLIER rule, then maybe the issue is, once again, that you are NOT reading this logically, nor literally. I am an IT specialist, so I am fairly sure the amount of literal and logical parsing given to text is far higher than someone who works in literary arts.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

There is no contradiction regarding it, you are simply choosing to ignore 1.6.1.5 Again, using the rulebook to teach anyone any game is usually a bad idea, especially for more complex games.

Fair enough. But, I assure you I am not ignoring the rule. I am just reading the offending text more literally than you are. In my reading of it, there is a contradiction in that the text intimates that the acting player can decide something to stop something else form happening, which contradicts the sequencing rules you cited. Because other people besides myeself has interpreted it this way, I am confident there is likely a problem with how the text is wordrd. We can change 4 words make it clearer. I am not arguing that the rules need changing or anything.

And once again, you are deciding to take rule 6.4 in a vacuum, without the context provided by 1.6.1.5
If you try and take any single rule in a vacuum, I guarantee it will seem contradictory. It is only when you take them as a whole, in sequence, that they make sense.

May, yes, but is not, by most.

That is a problem. It should be understood by everybody.

And once again, you are deciding to take rule 6.4 in a vacuum, without the context provided by 1.6.1.5
If you try and take any single rule in a vacuum, I guarantee it will seem contradictory. It is only when you take them as a whole, in sequence, that they make sense.

That's because newer players will do (and have done) exactly this when reading the rulebook. They will take that sentence in a vaccuum. So why leave it open to interpretation? Just clarify it.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

That's because newer players will do (and have done) exactly this when reading the rulebook. They will take that sentence in a vaccuum. So why leave it open to interpretation? Just clarify it.

Some newer players, not all, by any means. So because SOME people choose to use bicycles to drive over cliffs, I should ban all bicycles? Because some people are incapable of comprehending logic, logic should be discarded as a tool?

If you are, frankly, silly enough to take a single rule in a rulebook out of context, you are playing the wrong game, and should become a politician instead. Or maybe an anti-vax campaigner