Clearly you know about this and have done some research, but frankly, what you said pretty much corroborates what I said, in that you may have thought you were "correct" and in the right of its usage but what I read it as was very much different.
And hey, that's food for thought, I suppose. I thought it was clear, but I was the one who wrote it and I knew what I was thinking. Can't expect you to read my mind!
This is probably the closest to what I interpreted/read your use of "used to" to mean, in that the rules used to work that way, stopped at some point/rules edition update, and started up again in a later point/rules edition update.
Huh. Yeah, that is strange to me. Like, in my made-up example of the town with the library (in truth I did live in a town with a library on 2nd Avenue, but I know for a fact that
that library is still there). It was built in 1991 and it's been there the whole time. Anyway, I'd think that there wouldn't be any confusion in my phrase "used to" there and that my friend would not assume that I must know about this library having been torn down, just from the full context of my sentence. But it's pretty similar to the statement I made here about the rules, so perhaps I'm mistaken on that point. I know for a fact that I've seen other use the phrase in the same way, but of course that doesn't mean it's unambiguous.
Not part of our immediate discussion, but (again) I have a different interpretation of it. Not knowing his routine/performance, but based on that quote, it sounds like he initially had a routine that didn't involve making fun of audience members and any such making fun was "ad libbed" or thought of on the spot/not prepared (being reactive). But he probably found it "worked" for him and started preparing more to include such making fun in his routine (being proactive).
I mentioned that example because it and the Steinem quote were found on one of the first Google results an on a website that is generally considered authoritative/reliable. But also, I pointed it out because it is an example of someone saying he "used to" do something, but then appending a statement implying that he still does. I agree with your interpretation anyway. I'm not especially knowledgeable on Don Rickles' work, but my understanding of the quote was that he started out making fun of his audience incidentally or off-the-cuff, and that he gradually shifted to making it his shtick, to planning on it. But that's still an unambiguous example of someone using "used to" about something that didn't stop happening. He did not, I think, imply that he had
ceased making fun of his audience, that it was a thing he once did but that has since stopped.
I guess I'd say that when most people use the phrase "used to" in talking about things in the past, there's the strong implication that it's just in the past, that it's not happening anymore. But sometimes it's more of a general statement on the past without excluding the present. In my case, I used to read the Comprehensive Rules in full and keep track of all changes to them, reading every update. But I don't anymore. I had some enthusiasm toward striving to understand everything about the rules, wanting to master them. Since then, I've not only forgotten stuff, but also some rules have changed a lot. Sometimes I think I remember how the rules
used to apply on something, but I know I'm remembering something I learned many years ago and I can't be sure that my recollection, if accurate, is
still the case. That's not meant to say that I know the way the rules applied in such a case did change, even though I say "used to." More often, though, I run into returning players who might remember the 6th Edition rules update, but who weren't around for the 10th Edition rules update. They often ask about that. "I know it used to work this way, but does it still?" Does that make sense?
As an aside, I want to say that I was more than 95% confident that the rules on the steps of combat worked that way and always had, but you had me doubting myself there.
Anyway, like you being annoyed about being corrected on what you think is right, I'm similarly irked when it's pointed out to me that what I said/wrote meant something else than what I intended and thought was pretty clear. But I'm glad we can have a pretty calm discussion about that kind of thing 0verall.
I can understand why that would be frustrating. I was going to say, "But doesn't it seem like a problem to be saying 'on your
Declare
Attack' when that's extremely similar to 'Declare Attackers Step'?" But then I looked back and realized you'd said this...
Well, I cast on your Declare Attack (Phase - sorry if that wasn't clear - not Declare Attackers). So it would just be the Firebrand who is actually present for the Declare Attackers.
So maybe you actually agreed on that point and I missed it? I should have asked what you meant by "Phase" in that statement because I reread it and I'm still not sure...
Anyway, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to pick a bone about game terminology or trying to be a rules lawyer or whatever. We are pretty informal here and I like it. I genuinely thought that when you said "on your Declare Attack" that you meant in the Declare Attacker Step, and then when you followed it up indicating something else, that I was missing some mysterious rules interaction or concept. So I was thrown off.
