I think you lost track of the point of the discussion along time
ago. The point was to answer the question as to whether or not Age
of Conquest and Let the Galaxy Burn can be used in tandem.
The answer then was 'No' and it is still 'No'.
You seem to believe that this 'vote' has meaning when it does not.
In hours & hours of play I can never remember an issue being raised
about the timing of contingencies... this is a complete non-issue.
The rules are as clear now as they were 4 years ago.
As you have been advised, you may choose to make local rulings as
you see fit.
e.g. if you want to rule that AoC & LtGB work together then be that
as you will.
However, for unilateral rulings, in whatever is left of any
tournament 'scene' (given that the last B5 tournament that I have
personally witnessed was 2 years ago at Origins, accepting the
tourney Bruce ran in the UK this past year), the current rule book
and FAQ are 'lore' and the rulings made by any existing 'Rangers'
should be honoured.
Otherwise, why ask the question and seek a ruling?
This is NOT a time for the pebbles to vote.
Pumpin in Exile
--- In email@example.com
, "Michael English"
> > You are right and this is now getting boring. So I suggest we
> > discussion here. I propose we decide this by simple democracy.
> > motion is "Contingencies are resolved immediately they are
> > before any other card or rule effects". I believe this covers
> > critical point of the discussion.
> > I will vote for. I am assuming that Paul S and Bruce will vote
> > and that Michael Tagge will vote for. So that's two each for
> > So come on the rest of you. Get your votes in now.
> It's a week since I made this proposal. Hopefully everybody has
> chance to respond. Just in case they haven't I suggest leaving
> to vote open for another two days so that the poll closes at 12
> Greenwich Mean Time on 4th May 2005, unless of course anyone wants
> Michael English