On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Yes, but at the time you made the instruction to "each player", you made > (1) one instruction to the AoN (me) which imposed the obligation; and > (2) an instruction to each other player, which had no effect and has > no lingering effect, as they were not the AoN and under no obligation > to follow any instruction. I agree that the single obligation #1 passes > with the card, but anyone who gets the card later doesn't suddenly fall > under the requirements of those ineffectual #2 instructions, or any > made in the future. At least, that's what makes the most sense to me!
I think the obligation is to "perform the next action you're instructed to perform"; the nature of the action is separate (e.g. if I am obligated to publish a report this week, the obligation is one-off, but the actual text I am required to publish would change if the gamestate being reported on changed). (Do you think it's worth calling a CFJ on this as a whole? This case is silly, but might yield interesting precedents). -- -c.
