Thread:Timmy, Power Gamer/@comment-26290163-20160607011959

Hmmm... It seems I was also made the last comment on your wall. I am going to ask a simple question, and one, in which I know that I have absolutely no "right" to an answer.

We shared a brief history over one topic that you proved very helpful with. When I presented my question about the topic to my contact at Bushiroad that I have been graciously given access to, they said quite simply what you had said about the situation. Not only that, they said that in the detailed rules they sometimes cause problems by use one term, in that case "Play Timing", to mean more than one thing. They then gave me a new term which much better clarified the language of the battle play timing. That term, is Play Sequence. I then continued a long back and forth with not only my contact, but others from Singapore to different States in the U.S. until I was able to present them with a modified version of their diagram which included the new term.

Obviously, even the diagram is not comprehensive as many aspects, including the queue for automatic abilities, the fact that auto abilities must be processed first, that the non-turn Player can take priority by having an automatic ability triggered during a play sequence if the turn player does not, etc... are not present.

This, to say that your contribution to the discussion bore more fruit than just a "correct" answer as to what happens during not only play timing's for battles, but play timings in general.

My question has to do with what seems a strange edit to me, though it may be quite normal. It is no secret that one of my children on this site is Edin. Through his normal correspondence with Bushiroad, they told him that Counnterattack was not compulsory.

However, after seeing a previous email another user had sent about the subject in which they said that while the rules said Counterattack was discretionary, the reminder text indicated it was mandatory. They had received a reply from Bushiroad stating that it was mandatory. This was back in February of 2014. So, another email was sent quoting the first and asking which was correct. As Monsters have never had the reminder text and Spells now are no longer being printed, the email asked if and when a change in the ruling had occurred.

They responded by saying it was not compulsory but they apologized for not being able to give a date of change.

Recently, I'd asked a question that my contact needed to involve the Japanese Development Department about, and the answer to that question was that the Dev team had begun to use different text on cards. Of course you can see similarities with the latest changes to Hades Fall, The Ark, etc... Now, in my experience, support has only been getting better. The first huge problem I pointed out in their detailed rules which would let the turn player use [Act] in any of their phases was acknowledged before the first NY Regionals, but not changed until after the World Finals.

However, when I pointed out a flaw in the latest Version, it was fixed in days and a new link emerged. In fact, they fixed it twice within a week or so. That might be because I have a specific contact, but I've even seen general support get better.

My question, is why you deleted the ruling that Edin had put up? There was a link to the reason and as Roxas had already called it into question, members of the Wiki could certainly make their own minds up. I found it odd because it seemed like your first edit and took me by surprise after I checked your recent contributions. Perhaps it's because of the detailed rules using "Choose" instead of "You may choose", but I don't know because nothing was placed there.

And as someone who knows Bushiroad can be mistaken, not only in emails, but in the Detailed Rules, as I have caught a few and certainly can't be the only one, I found the sudden contribution weird. But that's just me. It could be simply how you normally do things. Roxas referred to communicating about this with a Professional Rule Checker. But, that they could not post, so their correspondence was quoted instead. But that correspondence simply pointed out what is well known.

Because my son posted the change and does not take things like this personally, but just likes to help however he can, I'm not going to get into some sort of "edit war". That would be really stupid anyway.

I just want to know what inspired you to delete it and why nothing was posted instead. Again, I know you don't have to respond.

I have quoted all of the arguments to my contact at Bushiroad, both for and against Counterattack being Compulsory. I've cited the emails, the past mistakes they've made, the wording of the Japanese and English Detailed rules which say "Choose" and not "You may choose", though, I've pointed out errors in both that have been corrected, and I've quoted the emails to my son.

When I get a response, which, if the Dev department gets involved took a few weeks last time, I will post the results myself, whether they show the emails to my son to be false or correct. And if anyone disagrees, I encourage them not to delete an entry, rather to add their own, with their own sources they used. That way the community, in my opinion, would be best served and be able to decide for themselves.

My long winded two cents. Be well. 