Scoring Sequence

[MisterWerks]

I'm falling down the rabbit hole of Wyrd's escape clause wording and bouncing between pages 21 and 35 trying to settle my argument with myself.  Which is the real way to handle this?

Player A has Initiative at the end of Turn Not 1.  Player A scores all his Strategies and then his Schemes, but if scoring both his Schemes gets to choose Scheme 1 or Scheme 2 first.

This seems clear.  But p35 says, "If multiple...Schemes are scoring, the player with Initiative determines the scoring order."

Does this mean that if Player B is ready to score both his Schemes, Player A gets to say which order Player B scores those Schemes?

Or does Player B get to take care of his business just like Player A and that stupid phrase on p35 is there just in case someday there's a model that breaks the rules about this scoring order and Wyrd is trying to solve an argument that hasn't even taken place yet?

[Adran]

As a default I would follow page 21 over page 35, as Page 21 is the rules, page 35 is the timing chart that tries to summerise the rules. 

I think page 35 is trying to cover a situation  like where the strategy is scored by the player with the most models in the middle. We don't currently have any of those this edition (that I can think of) but there were several last edition. 

Strictly speaking, page 21 doesn't disagree with page 35, and the player with the initiative does decide if you score scheme B first or second, but since they don't know what schemes the other player is trying to score I can't see how it could actually work. 

[trikk]

But according to Pg35 I, as the player with Initiative can force the other player to score his VP first. Which can make a difference in some schemes. Page 21 says I should just score my first, so it's a contradiction.

[Adran]

12 minutes ago, trikk said:

But according to Pg35 I, as the player with Initiative can force the other player to score his VP first. Which can make a difference in some schemes. Page 21 says I should just score my first, so it's a contradiction.

That wasn't how I read p35, but I can see where you are coming from. If you read p35 with the knowledge of p21, then p35 doesn't say you can force the opponent to score his schemes before you score yours. 

If you see a contradiction between the two, I would side with p21 first as it is the rules, p35 is a condensed version to fit in the timing table. (There is a similar issue with healing/killed if I remember right, the condensed version of the rules looks like it gives a different timing to the fully written out rules, but if you read the condensed version knowign the full version it does make sense)

[MisterWerks]

At least my confusion is justified.  I try to think of p35 as the condensed version, but I keep finding that it's too condensed and leaves out important information or introduces new material like this notion that the player with Initiative might dictate the scoring order of his opponent's schemes.  My gut says each player controls his own scoring, but I'd hate to teach a new player the wrong way, only to have it bite him in the butt later on.

[MisterWerks]

I got a definitive answer.  As we suspected, it's as simple as we thought it should be.  If Player A has Initiative:

A scores Strategy and then Schemes (Schemes in either order)

then B scores Strategy and then Schemes (Schemes in either order of B's choosing).

That p35 rule is - as I expected - a safety net in case some future game mechanic breaks this normal rule and there has to be a tiebreaker somehow.