> > That could probably be fixed, but it does seem to change the way at > > least I was thinking of dependent actions. My understanding was: > > dependent actions are methods; R2595 says how the method works; > > R2595's implementation happens to defer to the "by announcement" > > method. > > > > And under this if someone wanted to change it they could just add "without > announcement" to the conditions.
I think I got confused about the UNLESS in your rule text. (It's a bit unintuitive that adding the phrasing "can be performed without announcement" actually makes the rule less permissive by removing the default method.) The "Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE" part is confusing... if we have a situation where the UNLESS part is true (the rule specified "without announcement") but the part before the unless is false (a player didn't announce an action), then does the "Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE" get triggered? (If we treat UNLESS like a logical operator (A OR NOT B) then I suppose we can say the first sentence is true and so the "Otherwise" part doesn't get triggered, but I don't think English really works that way...) If we do decide to make a change like this, I wonder if it could be done by just editing the part before the first comma (i.e. closer to the original phrasing, as you suggested). - Falsifian
