From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Re: a few questions...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:43:17 GMT

In article <1SEP199219460803@zeus.tamu.edu>, dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:
>
>Of course he can. I challenge anyone to find a rule that says you can't respond
>to another player's actions. 

Challenge accepted.  From the Complete rules to Cosmic Encounter (aka the
Expansion Set 9 rulebook):

Timing Conflicts:

In all cases of timing conflicts (when two players invoke contradictory
special effects simultaneously) between Powers, Flares, Edicts, Moons, or
Hexes, etc. resolution takes place as follows: the players who are not the 
main players, in order, to the left of the offense, will play first.  Then 
the offensive player will play, then finally the defensive player will play.

>Note that 'responding' means doing something
>you wouldn't have done otherwise. Thus, to be consistent, Nick would have
>the offensive player unable to 'respond' to ANY defender's action unless
>the response directly effects the action (maybe not even then). 

Only when the two main players are trying to invoke two different effects at
the same time in the game (like the example that started all this, a Mirror
versus Sorcerer challenge).

I think you are reading my statements way out of context here.  Of 
course the offensive player can respond to most anything the defensive
player does.  If the defensive player Plagues the offensive player the
offensive player could stop it with the Edictzap.  The only time the
offensive player is at all restricted is when he and the defensive player
are trying to both invoke Power, Flares, Moons, etc. that operate at the
same time.  Like in the above example, the Mirror and Sorcerer powers are
both triggered "after cards are played but before they are revealed".

I really think this whole thing is a mountain being made out of a mole 
hill.  The timing conflict rules are rarely invoked.  Like I have said
previously we have to use them about once out of every four games that
we play (and this number might be an overly high estimate).  There just
aren't that many times where players are going to invoke things that go
off at "the same time".  The most common place one would see timing rules
become enforced is during the ally commitment phase, and even here it's
only going to come up if two players refuse to ally until they each see 
what the other one does. 

>The defender
>could just say "I refuse to decide whether to play wild void until he
>decides if he is going to do anything at all"

This is outside the coverage of the timing conflict rule.

>njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer) writes...[referring to the above
>quotation]:
>>As a house rule, this is just as valid a way to operate.  
>
>This is not a house rule. Inventing mechanisms for forcing players to
>announce their intentions is.

I've said it before and I'll say it again until everyone gets it.  The 
timing conflict rule only forces a player to announce his intentions when
two effects are being invoked at the same time and neither player wants to 
give in on going first.  This is a very rare circumstance in the game.

Nick Sauer