A few queries about Field Training. To those reading this post, please note that I have my copy editor hat on with this post and am in no way meaning to criticize the fantastic work done with these new cards.
Field training states:
"Unlock this vampire, choose a Discipline they have at superior and put this card on another ready non-titled vampire you control. The attached vampire is considered anarch (and Independent), and gets +1 level of the chosen Discipline. If the attached vampire changes sect, burn this card. A vampire can have only one Field Training."
First, having "this vampire" and then referring to the subject with the singular they is idiomatically speaking something a native English speaker will find awkward. In all cases, the native speaker would use "it" when referring to something other than a specific human being (wherein they would use the gender-specific he or she because that information is known). For example, "Unlock this dog, choose a discipline it has...". A native English speaker would never use singular they when referring to a specific dog, and they wouldn't use it when referring to a specific vampire either. Is there a reason not to use "it" in this situation?
Second, the text says "put this card on," and then it later states "the attached vampire." Why not say "Attach this card to"? Is there a reason to retain "put this card on"? Putting something on something else and attaching something to something else are not the same thing. Therefore it's a bit of a leap in logic to say "put this card on" in one sentence and in the next sentence to say "The attached vampire." Now, the new text in the rulebook does explain things nicely, making this is a relatively minor detail. But, using "attach this card to" perhaps would allow one to understand the concept of “attach” better just from a cold read of the card text alone.
Last, some questions about punctuation: is there a reason not to use the serial comma after "superior" in the first sentence? And in the second sentence, is there a reason for the comma after "(and Independent)"? There should not be a comma there because it's all the same clause.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> First, having "this vampire" and then referring to the subject with the singular they is idiomatically speaking something a native English speaker will find awkward.
>
It's typically in that situation that the singular they is used:
"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they)
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> In all cases, the native speaker would use "it" when referring to something other than a specific human being (wherein they would use the gender-specific he or she because that information is known). For example, "Unlock this dog, choose a discipline it has...". A native English speaker would never use singular they when referring to a specific dog, and they wouldn't use it when referring to a specific vampire either. Is there a reason not to use "it" in this situation?
>
Vampires are here treated like human beings.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Second, the text says "put this card on," and then it later states "the attached vampire." Why not say "Attach this card to"? ... But, using "attach this card to" perhaps would allow one to understand the concept of “attach” better just from a cold read of the card text alone.
>
That was an option. But if you attach the card to the vampire, then it's the card that is attached, not the vampire and "the attached vampire" doesn't match logically. Either way, this slight contradiction is solved by the rulebook: "If a card is put on another, both are considered attached to each other.", so it was easier to keep it that way.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Last, some questions about punctuation: is there a reason not to use the serial comma after "superior" in the first sentence? And in the second sentence, is there a reason for the comma after "(and Independent)"? There should not be a comma there because it's all the same clause.
>
There's no strict rule, as long as there's no ambiguity (even if we tend not to use the serial comma)
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
So.....
We're ditching the things Hasbro owns...
Cards are being printed....
We are for all intents and purposes in line to be back in print.
Why are complaints even coming to people's minds?
Change "tap" to "floop" and I'll notice in 3 mons because we appear to have returned to print. And that is what matters.
Official release: May 11, 2017
Legal for Tournament Play: May 11, 2017
Welcome to the second week of previews of the Anthology set! The previous week previews are still available by scrolling down.
PREVIEWS
Field TrainingWeirich WaldurgAndré the Manipulator
New wording
Attached
By default, a minion card in play is controlled by the controller of the minion it is on (sec. 1.6.3. Minion cards). This leads to two reading perspective for cards that are put on other minions:
1. first, when the action is announced and during its course, "this minion" refers to the acting minion
2. then, after the action has been resolved, "this minion" refers to the minion the card is on.
In order not to rely too heavily on the subtleties of the differences between "this acting minion", "that minion" that are confusing for new and old players alike, and to avoid cumbersome formulations such as "the minion with this card", a new keyword "attached" has been added.
Attached: if a card is put on another, both are considered attached to each other.
This keyword is similar to the existing "bearer" (for equipment) or "employer" (for retainers) keywords.
The reprint of Field Training uses this new wording: "Unlock this vampire, choose a Discipline they have at superior and put this card on another ready non-titled vampire you control. The attached vampire is considered anarch (and Independent), and gets +1 level of the chosen Discipline. If the attached vampire changes sect, burn this card. A vampire can have only one Field Training."
"Unlock this vampire" refers to the acting vampire, and "The attached vampire" refers to the vampire the Field Training is put on.
As a last reminder, don't forget that Field Training can be put on a vampire who already has the chosen Discipline at superior (contrary to Discipline cards that usually have a restriction)!
See you next week for more previews!
V:EKN Website Coordinator
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > First, having "this vampire" and then referring to the subject with the singular they is idiomatically speaking something a native English speaker will find awkward.
> >
> It's typically in that situation that the singular they is used:
>
> "The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they)
>
Your example says "The patient." It is not referring to a specific patient (eg, This patient). The card says "This vampire." It is referring to a specific vampire. Using singular they in this context is awkward.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > In all cases, the native speaker would use "it" when referring to something other than a specific human being (wherein they would use the gender-specific he or she because that information is known). For example, "Unlock this dog, choose a discipline it has...". A native English speaker would never use singular they when referring to a specific dog, and they wouldn't use it when referring to a specific vampire either. Is there a reason not to use "it" in this situation?
> >
> Vampires are here treated like human beings.
>
The point is the singular they is being used to refer to one specific vampire, who is either a he or she, and this is misusing the singular they. It's awkward for a native speaker to use the singular they to refer to something other than a gender nonspecific person, such as "the patient" or "the vampire." Thus, the only fix I see is to treat specific vampires as something not human like dogs, and refer to them as "it."
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Second, the text says "put this card on," and then it later states "the attached vampire." Why not say "Attach this card to"? ... But, using "attach this card to" perhaps would allow one to understand the concept of “attach” better just from a cold read of the card text alone.
> >
> That was an option. But if you attach the card to the vampire, then it's the card that is attached, not the vampire and "the attached vampire" doesn't match logically.
>
How so? I don't understand how it doesn't match logically. It's clear you are attaching the card to the vampire, and you are not attaching the vampire to the card, but that they are attached to one another.
> Either way, this slight contradiction that is solved by the rulebook: "If a card is put on another, both are considered attached to each other.", so it was easier to keep it that way.
>
Right. I said as much. It'd just be nice if a cold read of the card text explained everything one needed to know without having to look at the rulebook.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Last, some questions about punctuation: is there a reason not to use the serial comma after "superior" in the first sentence? And in the second sentence, is there a reason for the comma after "(and Independent)"? There should not be a comma there because it's all the same clause.
> >
> There's no strict rule, as long as there's no ambiguity.
>
There is ambiguity. Do you unlock the vampire, then choose a discipline and put the card on the vampire at the same time (no serial comma)? Or do you unlock the vampire, then choose the discipline, then put the card on the vampire (serial comma)? As for the other comma being misused after "(and Independent)," there probably should be a strict rule about misusing commas.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > Last, some questions about punctuation: is there a reason not to use the serial comma after "superior" in the first sentence? And in the second sentence, is there a reason for the comma after "(and Independent)"? There should not be a comma there because it's all the same clause.
> > >
> > There's no strict rule, as long as there's no ambiguity.
> >
> There is ambiguity. Do you unlock the vampire, then choose a discipline and put the card on the vampire at the same time (no serial comma)? Or do you unlock the vampire, then choose the discipline, then put the card on the vampire (serial comma)? As for the other comma being misused after "(and Independent)," there probably should be a strict rule about misusing commas.
>
The timing is not defined by the commas, but by the rules:
www.vekn.net/rulebook/6-minion-phase#6.2.1.announcetheaction
"All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc. Any card required for the action is played (face up) at this time. Lock the acting minion (only ready unlocked minions can take actions)."
There is no ambiguity here: you have to announce the details (the vampire this card is put on, the discipline you choose) then apply the effects one by one if the action is successful.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> >
> > > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > > Last, some questions about punctuation: is there a reason not to use the serial comma after "superior" in the first sentence? And in the second sentence, is there a reason for the comma after "(and Independent)"? There should not be a comma there because it's all the same clause.
> > > >
> > > There's no strict rule, as long as there's no ambiguity.
> > >
> > >
> > There is ambiguity. Do you unlock the vampire, then choose a discipline and put the card on the vampire at the same time (no serial comma)? Or do you unlock the vampire, then choose the discipline, then put the card on the vampire (serial comma)? As for the other comma being misused after "(and Independent)," there probably should be a strict rule about misusing commas.
> >
> The timing is not defined by the commas, but by the rules:
> www.vekn.net/rulebook/6-minion-phase#6.2.1.announcetheaction
>
> "All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc. Any card required for the action is played (face up) at this time. Lock the acting minion (only ready unlocked minions can take actions)."
>
> There is no ambiguity here: you have to announce the details (the vampire this card is put on, the discipline you choose) then apply the effects one by one if the action is successful.
>
Therefore you need the serial comma. The current punctuation, from a strict grammatical standpoint, contradicts what is in the rulebook.
Gines,
Nice feild training art, it feels thematically better for anarchs.
Will we be seeing new art on WWccp/wotc reprinted cards?
Freak drive, deflection, govern, majesty, taste of vitae, and DI all come to mind of things that are used all the freaking time and may need new art.
Depending on business model for future distribution, would it be practical to change up art on these Staples and include them with print runs of VEKN produced sets? It would add an interesting collectability factor.
I understand old ccg models are history, so what's the new way?
I agree with Two Razor Reigns about the commas. Although there is no "English Academy" and thus no "official" rules, the serial or "Oxford" comma is preferable since it reduces ambiguity. It seems like you're grouping the second and third directives together when you're not.
The comma after "Independent)" should not be there - you only separate serial predicates with a comma if there are more than two. I've seen this kind of comma in legal writing involving very long sentences, and to mirror natural pauses in speech (see what I did), but it is not used in general reading materials. If you're going to use facultative commas like this, then you should definitely us the Oxford comma.
I also cringe when I see the singular "they" used in formal writing, but it is used all the time in informal speech. It is becoming more and more accepted by prescriptive grammarians, especially with the current cultural issues regarding gender identity. I think it's an appropriate change.
The decline of civilization chronicled in vtes art:
Cam Ed, telepathic misdirection, subject in bad brains t-shirt with middle finger raised defiantly.
Now, Andre (a Caucasian Gangrel) wears a "YOLO" cap.
The artwork is technically better on the latter than the former........
Just an observation.....
> AaronC wrote:
> I agree with Two Razor Reigns about the commas. Although there is no "English Academy" and thus no "official" rules, the serial or "Oxford" comma is preferable since it reduces ambiguity. It seems like you're grouping the second and third directives together when you're not.
>
Whether the second and third directive are grouped or not here doesn't matter. That's why there's no ambiguity.
(Generally speaking, there are ambiguities introduced by the serial comma (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma). )
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > I agree with Two Razor Reigns about the commas. Although there is no "English Academy" and thus no "official" rules, the serial or "Oxford" comma is preferable since it reduces ambiguity. It seems like you're grouping the second and third directives together when you're not.
> >
> Whether the second and third directive are grouped or not here doesn't matter. That's why there's no ambiguity.
>
> (Generally speaking, there are ambiguities introduced by the serial comma (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma). )
>
There's no ambiguity on this specific card, yes. But, my question to you is then why use the serial comma on Change of Target?
"Only usable when this acting minion is blocked (play before combat, if any). Untap the acting minion, do not tap the blocking minion, and end the current action (it is not successful). This minion cannot perform the same action again this turn."
Also, speaking as an editor with a lot of experience, you really shouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source. It cites the Oxford Manual Style for it's reasons against using the serial comma, which is a style guide used specifically for publications of the Oxford University Press. There are more widely used style guides that argue for the serial comma for good reason.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Also, speaking as an editor with a lot of experience, [...] It cites the Oxford Manual Style for it's reasons [...]
>
...it's...
(sorry)
Emiliano "Sans Terre" - Wandering Player - Prince of Brussels
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> Will we be seeing new art on WWccp/wotc reprinted cards?
>
Yes. There will be new art on some of the reprinted cards in the Anthology set.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> Depending on business model for future distribution, would it be practical to change up art on these Staples and include them with print runs of VEKN produced sets? It would add an interesting collectability factor.
>
> I understand old ccg models are history, so what's the new way?
>
We will see
V:EKN Website Coordinator
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> The decline of civilization chronicled in vtes art:
> Cam Ed, telepathic misdirection, subject in bad brains t-shirt with middle finger raised defiantly.
> Now, Andre (a Caucasian Gangrel) wears a "YOLO" cap.
> The artwork is technically better on the latter than the former........
>
> Just an observation.....
>
In the Anarchs Unbound expansion, we have:
Appolonius giving everyone the double deuce.
Maldavis wearing a Reagan Youth tshirt.
Dancin' Dana standing in front of a Sex Pistols poster.
Desiree Narayan wearing a Le Tigre tshirt.
And a library card called Ni Dieu ni Maître (No Gods No Masters).
Personally, I think a vampire wearing a You Only Live Once hat is pretty damn funny. YMMV.
> BenPeal wrote:
>
> > ReverendRevolver wrote:
> > The decline of civilization chronicled in vtes art:
> > Cam Ed, telepathic misdirection, subject in bad brains t-shirt with middle finger raised defiantly.
> > Now, Andre (a Caucasian Gangrel) wears a "YOLO" cap.
> > The artwork is technically better on the latter than the former........
> >
> > Just an observation.....
> >
> In the Anarchs Unbound expansion, we have:
>
> Appolonius giving everyone the double deuce.
> Maldavis wearing a Reagan Youth tshirt.
> Dancin' Dana standing in front of a Sex Pistols poster.
> Desiree Narayan wearing a Le Tigre tshirt.
> And a library card called Ni Dieu ni Maître (No Gods No Masters).
>
> Personally, I think a vampire wearing a You Only Live Once hat is pretty damn funny. YMMV.
>
Good points, yolo just hurts my soul.
Never noticed the Le Tigre shirt, but the Reagan youth and sex pistols jumped out at me.
When I see a gargoyle in a Nekromantix shirt, I'll be elated......
> BenPeal wrote:
>
> > ReverendRevolver wrote:
> > The decline of civilization chronicled in vtes art:
> > Cam Ed, telepathic misdirection, subject in bad brains t-shirt with middle finger raised defiantly.
> > Now, Andre (a Caucasian Gangrel) wears a "YOLO" cap.
> > The artwork is technically better on the latter than the former........
> >
> > Just an observation.....
> >
> In the Anarchs Unbound expansion, we have:
>
> Appolonius giving everyone the double deuce.
> Maldavis wearing a Reagan Youth tshirt.
> Dancin' Dana standing in front of a Sex Pistols poster.
> Desiree Narayan wearing a Le Tigre tshirt.
> And a library card called Ni Dieu ni Maître (No Gods No Masters).
>
> Personally, I think a vampire wearing a You Only Live Once hat is pretty damn funny. YMMV.
>
Specially when its Isak.
3rd ed Fame they are playing in front of a Filth Crib poster.
Because Craddle of Filth was too much on the nose, I guess.
Oh by the way, there are new cards to discuss
So, 6 pool for FOR PRO is rough, ability makes it worth it. I call our Gangrel "super balanced" in that regard.
Both ventrue so far have been playable, wouldn't say that they make me want to build a deck like Iniyanga, or they make an existing deck super better, like Dana adv. But, they all so far fill some purpose, which is needed.
Also, a gargoyle in this set, bloodline set on horizon..... that's going to be interesting.....
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
>
> > BenPeal wrote:
> > When I see a gargoyle in a Nekromantix shirt, I'll be elated......
> >
> Indeed!
> Or at least standing on the rooftop in Copenhagen...
>
Finnish Politics!
As long as it's not on the ground I think it counts as "over"
Sounds like a viable tidbit of art for a gargoyle library card as well... If only there were a bloodline set in the works...