Question here, to which I think I already have a logical answer. Will ask anyway, since I have this nagging feeling that I could receive the non-logical answer, which would be really irritating. The wording of Warp Point has changed, and as we've seen from Pokemon Reversal, the new wording overrides the older (and in this case, more clear) wording. So.... OLD WARP POINT: Your opponent switches the defending pokemon with 1 of his or her benched pokemon, if any; then you switch your active pokemon with 1 of your benched pokemon, if any. NEW WARP POINT: Your opponent switches 1 of his or her defending pokemon with 1 of his or her benched pokemon, if any. You switch 1 of your active pokemon with 1 of your benched pokemon, if any. The new warp point makes no mention of the order in which the pokemon are switched (yours or your opponent's first). I've played in countless games now where the order in which the switch is performed is crucial to the outcome of the game, so I don't want there to be any lack of clarity in the wording or ruling of the card. My assumption is that, though the wording of the card has changed to address 2 v. 2 gameplay, the execution of the card's effects will remain unchanged for normal play. That being said, however, if I play my new warp point, I could see an opponent arguing (and not without merit, based upon the wording of the new card), that since I am playing the card, the order is to be determined in a different way, perhaps: 1. I choose, because I am in control of the card. 2. I must switch first, since I played the card. 3. We switch simultaneously (thus creating all sorts of Western-streetside-duel-who-draws-iron-first type situations) 4. Some other unforseen resolution (we argue until one of us gets tired of it and switches?) Again, I would hope that play of the card would be unchanged, but this wording nags at me something fierce. Your thoughts?