Rapier / additional attacks

[ultra]

The rule book is using the rapier as an example of giving a player an example of giving a player an extra attack , but this might be error? Doesnt it just let the rapier's user play an additional basic attack? (which is different fromm getting a whole attack slot)?

[zogfhyr]

Extra attack slot, which is for a non-special attack.

[zogfhyr]

In case this is relevant, the rule book also states "Play In Place Of An Attack : When a card states “Play in place of an attack.” , the attack it is referring to is the Primary attack only."

[ultra]

I am bringing this up from 'reading' the card.
Like Battlefield which has been misplayed many times over, there is no choice of holding onto the defences.
Here on the Rapier, it says You may play an additional Non-Special Attack during your turn.

Which does not imply specifically you get extra attack slot.
This is why I was asking.
I did in error think that there might be a way around it (if this is indeed an attack slot to play any attack but I had misread the other card).
And conversely (if im using this word correctly) the Rapier would not allow your opponent to get extra attack while in Rome (if it's not an extra attack slot).

It should be a fairly big deal to be sure this is attack slot or not. And directly reading the card, it is not clear.

This question really is not pointing fingers 'ewww that is wrong' but maybe verbage needs to be even more consistent. It is decently consistent but I find myself reading cards and getting 'ideas'.

And any newcomer would less likely read/play a card incorrectly. (like me)

[prowler7]

"An Additional Attack" and "Gain an Attack Slot" mean the same thing. However, sometimes these come with a modifier such as "non-Special Attack" or "that can be used for a Disarm". When an effect that grants an additional attack or attack slot is used, you must abide by any modifier on that gained attack.