by Scorpion0x17
SPBTooL wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Being able to play evolutions in response to someone else reaching a VP win condition doesn't actually need interrupts or a stack.
It just needs that a player be able to play cards in response to, and thereby prevent, a win.
So the "Richard said..." argument is moot.
And the rules as I read them leave room for a player to play an evolution in response to, and thereby prevent, a win condition.
The rules, though, could just as easily be read such that this is not allowed.
Therefor I think it best for each group to decide for themselves which interpretation to use, as there is no clearly right answer.
It just needs that a player be able to play cards in response to, and thereby prevent, a win.
So the "Richard said..." argument is moot.
And the rules as I read them leave room for a player to play an evolution in response to, and thereby prevent, a win condition.
The rules, though, could just as easily be read such that this is not allowed.
Therefor I think it best for each group to decide for themselves which interpretation to use, as there is no clearly right answer.
So the official response posted from IELLO that states the game ends as soon as someone reaches 20vp with no chance for a player to respond is also moot? Why have rules forums? You can interpret the rules any way you want but arguing against the official ruling in a rules forum seems trollish. :goo:
When that response appears to go directly counter to the rules as published, rather than simply clarifying them, and different representatives of said publishers have a history of providing different answers to the same question, one has to question the validity of that response.