Now that's just not right.

The rules fully support the initiative player's ability to start the attack step with an attack declaration.

What did I miss?

You didn't miss anything, they just changed it. Which they have every right to do. I just hoping to get a reason as to why. I'm sure it has to do with timing and how they want certain cards to interact. It may be a preemtive change based on some cards that will be released in teh future.

Zaxx, they haven't changed anything, I guess Chad has a problem admitting that maybe he didn't understand it all along. As far as i understood this was always the way it has been.

The pieces have been there right from the time Alex originally posted the Attack Breakdown, and i'll outline it.

[Chain Point 1] This is the start of the Combat Phase, both Players must 'Pass' on this before you can proceed. Dark Phoenix's effect Triggers here.

[Chain Point 2] This is the start of the Attack Step, both Players must 'Pass' on this before you can proceed. Onslaught's effect Triggers here.

[No Chain Point] This is when you pick your proposed 'attackers', and legality is checked. No Priority is given, so no chaining can result.

[Chain Point 3] This is Attack Declaration, both Players must 'Pass' on this before you can proceed with the attack.


All together that is 3 opportunities for Dazzlers' effect to be put on the Chain.

Nova, don't be talking like you knew the answer all along, before you were saying there was two chances not 3. This is a CHANGE from the original Rules. The "Pre-declaration Step" was recently added.

I have no problem with UDE restructuring the way they want to run the game, it is there game after all. If that is how it worked all along, they would not have to have needed tp revise the Detailed attack step breakdown as they did.

The only part I was wrong about was there being a space between the beginning of combat phase and beginning of attack step. What I don't know is if that was they way it has always been, or part of the revamp of the attack step.

And it is not about understanding, it is about interpeting. My interpetation fully worked given the guildlines in the rule book. Even David DeLaney agreed with me based on the basic rule book. But as we all know the basic rule book is just that, basic and subject to change at their whim.

Now now... no attack declarations here or I'll Gamma Bomb both of you.

I don't think UDE 'changed' anything, they just clarified where the chain windows are.

I don't think it was different from what the rules say:

Rules of Priority

Who has priority:

• When a new phase begins, the player with initiative has priority.
• When a new step begins, the player whose step it is has priority.
• When an effect resolves it is removed from the chain and then priority is given to the player whose step it is. If the chain is not occuring within a step, the player with initiative has priority.

When a player has priority, he may either put an effect on the chain or pass.

Let's chill, friends.

I see it as a sorely needed clarification.

It says that every phase has a player with initiative who must pass at the start of the phase and wait for a pass to move on to the steps within that phase.

It's cool.

I went back and re-read this whole thing again and I think cdaniel keeps missing the point that at the beginning of each phase or step (and end) there is an opportunity for chaining. If the player with priority passes, the next player gets the chance to chain.

Beginning of Combat Phase [chain]
Beginning of Attack Step [chain]

What UDE did was just make sure that on the Attack Step breakdowm, everyone knows there is a chain window right before declaration.

Some of us assumed that to be true already because we knew the breakdown was for inside the attack step AFTER this chain window.

I don't know where the idea of 'player with priority does not have to give the next player an opportunity to chain' came from... that is one thing I see nowhere in the rules.

The addition of the "Pre-declaration step" was a change hence the addition of "step 0" in the breakdown. You can't tell me all along there was a step 0 and they just decided to not tell us. They had to add a step 0 in order for the rules to work they way they wanted.

Come on Chad, my comment was not intend to insult or make myself look like 'i had the right answer all along', but merely to point out that we are all here to learn, this is a new game to all of us. Zaxx made me look pretty stupid on another Thread concerning Ongoing Plot Twists and Locations, but hey you are not going to know everything.

While non of us are 'rookies' to rulings and game mechanics, we are all falling back on our knowledge of other games. I'm here to first an formost learn, and secondly to help, because i do know a bit of what i'm talking about.

If you want to discredit me for trying to help you out...go ahead, I can't stop you. I saw a problem with what you said and tried to show why it was wrong. I, in no way, attempted to you look foolish, it just seemed like you misunderstood.

Anyway, we've beet'n it to death, and an Official answer was given (slightly different from all our answers).

We had been playing with a step zero all along. The basic rules just didn't fill in the blanks between the beginning of the phase and the beginning of the step.

Okay... I know you feel strongly about this but this is how I see it.

Substep 0 (not Step 0) is merely the 'Start of Attack Step'. Since the original outline did not have this, they had to add it to clarify that there is a chain window prior to Attack Declaration.

Stepstep 0... although not shown in the outline was ALWAYS there. It is there for EVERY Step because as the rules point out, at the start of every phase and step, the player with priority has an opportunity to put an effect on the chain or pass.

I hope this makes it more clear.

It was always there because the Rulebook clearly states:

"When a new step begins, the player whose step it is has priority."

And whenever a Player is given Priority it represents an activation window.

Then the Attack Breakdown specifically stated that in Step 1, no Priority is given...representing a seperation between the start of the Step and when the attack is declared.

I originally thought that the Attack Step started when the first attack was declared, but after reading it last night, i realized that it was there all along.

An attack declaration is an effect that is put on the chain. There was no indication in the rulebook that even implied that at the beginning of my attack step I could play any effect EXCEPT an attack declartion.

Also your explanation does not factor in that all players have to pass on an empty chain before EACH attacker, not just the first. If it was just a "at the beginnging of the step thing" then there would be no need to do it before each attacker.

EDIT: Ahh... okay... now I see where cdaniel is at.

In the rules it says the attack step can contain multiple attacks.

Wow... all this time I've been treating each attack as its own step.

So I now know where the confusion lies. This is probably why UDE had to make that change, to accomodate the fact that they didn't specifiy each attack as a step in the rulebook.

Maybe the Comp Rules will address this too (like that 'failure to find' clause).

My apologies Chad.

"Each time you you declare an attacker or team of attackers is a new Attack Step"

Actually erick, its a small point, but this is not entirly correct.

Each Player has 1 Attack Step, within that Attack Step, he/she may attack multiple times.

This is important to note, as going by your original statement, Onslaught's effect would Trigger multiple times, which i'm pretty sure it does not. You 'start' your Attack Step once, and Trigger an effect such as Onslaught's once. After the initial beginning activation window is passed, you do not return to it, you would return to Step 1, choosing proposed attackers.