Reply: King of Tokyo:: Rules:: Re: Order of operations

by Scorpion0x17

ras2124 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

No, but FAQs and clarifications generally clear up logical inconsistencies, rather than introducing them.

What is logically inconsistent? If the rules say something and an errata says the opposite, it is not an inconsistency, it is an update.

The rule on having to survive till the end of the turn in order to claim victory implies that victory is not instantaneous and can be snatched away from you.

The errata that a player has won as soon as his monster reaches 20VP implies that victory is instantaneous and can not be snatched away from you.

Those two statements are logically inconsistent.

ras2124 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Stephan's statement introduces a logical inconsistency that did not previously exist.

Rules change

True.

But not all change is either necessary or desirable.

And this change seems to be neither.

ras2124 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

If one takes the rules as they are published there is no inconsistency and no need for an FAQ or clarification.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

ras2124 wrote:

King of Tokyo: The game where the rules are ambiguous in places and it's up to you to interpret those ambiguities in a way that is most fun for your group. :D

Fixed that for you.

It seems that it is you that is inconsistent.

I was being facetious, but...

Something can be:

1. Consistent, and unambiguous.
2. Inconsistent, but unambiguous.
3. Ambiguous, but consistent.
4. Ambiguous, and inconsistent.

Now...

The ideal would be for the rules to be the first, but either of the second or the third are ok, and the fourth is the least desirable.

The rules as written were merely ambiguous.
They're now ambiguous and inconsistent.