First, nice work to all involved with the new cards. They look great!
I have a few questions about new rules text and text on cards. First, the text on cards:
For Erlik, it says: “As Erlik enters play, you can distribute up to 5 blood from him to any of your uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls.” Does “distribute” mean the same thing as “move,” only clarifying that any amount of the 5 blood can be moved among any amount of uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls?
On Emerald Legionnaire, under the action/ally symbol, it says “Recruit Action.” I find it odd that it does not say “Recruit Ally Action.” If the idea of this text is to clarify what the symbols mean, then shouldn’t the word “Ally” be included, because the ally symbol is shown?
Last, the new rules text states, “This is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder.” I like the idea here that parenthetical text is used to clarify a limitation. But, I am puzzled by how this is worded.
First, I assume the word “reminder” is used to mean “reminder text.” The term “reminder text” is a Magic: The Gathering term, and is therefore jargon used among those involved with that game. If one does not play M:tG, or is new to collectible card games, they will not know what is meant by “reminder” in the rulebook. Thus, a new term requiring a definition is being added to the rulebook, but without a definition.
Second, “(limited)” is not a reminder, it is a key word. Key words have associated reminder text to clarify what the key word means, per the definition of reminder text here . So, if this really is a “reminder,” the text on the card should look something like “+1 bleed. Limited. (only one action modifier can be used to increase the bleed amount). (I am aware this is too wordy and not within the spirit of the new rule. Just illustrating my point that “reminder” is the wrong word to use).
Third, the subject in ““This is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder” does not appear to be the intended subject. For bleed modifiers, “this” refers to “A minion cannot use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action.” So this sentence is saying “A minion not being able to use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder.” Unless “reminder” in this sentence has a meaning used by the designers that I am unaware of (which would be the jargon issue outlined above), then this sentence does not make sense. It’s the player who is being reminded, not the concept of one bleed modifier being used who is being reminded.
It’s probably best to not introduce the term “reminder” into VTES at all. Instead, perhaps the new text in the rulebook can say something like “This is indicated on the card by the word ‘(limited)’”?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> For Erlik, it says: “As Erlik enters play, you can distribute up to 5 blood from him to any of your uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls.” Does “distribute” mean the same thing as “move,” only clarifying that any amount of the 5 blood can be moved among any amount of uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls?
>
This is the same wording used by Great Symposium. Yes, the 5 blood can go to one uncontrolled vampire or split evenly or evenly amongst many vampires.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> On Emerald Legionnaire, under the action/ally symbol, it says “Recruit Action.” I find it odd that it does not say “Recruit Ally Action.” If the idea of this text is to clarify what the symbols mean, then shouldn’t the word “Ally” be included, because the ally symbol is shown?
>
Only allies can be recruited, the extra wording is redundant.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> For Erlik, it says: “As Erlik enters play, you can distribute up to 5 blood from him to any of your uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls.” Does “distribute” mean the same thing as “move,” only clarifying that any amount of the 5 blood can be moved among any amount of uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls?
>
Correct. It enforces the notion that the blood can be distributed among vampires.
"any amount of the 5 blood" => "up to 5 blood"
"among any amount of uncontrolled Harbingers of Skulls" => distribute.
See also Dmitra.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> On Emerald Legionnaire, under the action/ally symbol, it says “Recruit Action.” I find it odd that it does not say “Recruit Ally Action.” If the idea of this text is to clarify what the symbols mean, then shouldn’t the word “Ally” be included, because the ally symbol is shown?
>
The text is there to help people remembering what the symbols mean. "Recruit action" is likely to be enough to find the reference in the rulebook. Adding the word "ally" has its pros and cons.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> First, I assume the word “reminder” is used to mean “reminder text.”
>
No, it means "something that helps someone remember". (Cambridge)
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> The term “reminder text” is a Magic: The Gathering term, and is therefore jargon used among those involved with that game. If one does not play M:tG, or is new to collectible card games, they will not know what is meant by “reminder” in the rulebook. Thus, a new term requiring a definition is being added to the rulebook, but without a definition.
>
Moot.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Second, “(limited)” is not a reminder, it is a key word. Key words have associated reminder text to clarify what the key word means, per the definition of reminder text here . So, if this really is a “reminder,” the text on the card should look something like “+1 bleed. Limited. (only one action modifier can be used to increase the bleed amount). (I am aware this is too wordy and not within the spirit of the new rule. Just illustrating my point that “reminder” is the wrong word to use).
>
It's not a keyword. Parentheses are now exclusively used to indicate that the text is optional, and usually used to remind players of the rules.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Third, the subject in ““This is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder” does not appear to be the intended subject. For bleed modifiers, “this” refers to “A minion cannot use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action.” So this sentence is saying “A minion not being able to use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder.”
> Unless “reminder” in this sentence has a meaning used by the designers that I am unaware of (which would be the jargon issue outlined above), then this sentence does not make sense. It’s the player who is being reminded, not the concept of one bleed modifier being used who is being reminded.
>
Correct, this is a mistake. It should read something like "Players are reminded of this limitation by the text "(limited)."
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > On Emerald Legionnaire, under the action/ally symbol, it says “Recruit Action.” I find it odd that it does not say “Recruit Ally Action.” If the idea of this text is to clarify what the symbols mean, then shouldn’t the word “Ally” be included, because the ally symbol is shown?
> >
> Only allies can be recruited, the extra wording is redundant.
>
So why was the extra wording added? If it's redundant, it's not necessary to include it. Surely it's serving some purpose.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > On Emerald Legionnaire, under the action/ally symbol, it says “Recruit Action.” I find it odd that it does not say “Recruit Ally Action.” If the idea of this text is to clarify what the symbols mean, then shouldn’t the word “Ally” be included, because the ally symbol is shown?
> >
> The text is there to help people remembering what the symbols mean. "Recruit action" is likely to be enough to find the reference in the rulebook. Adding the word "ally" has its pros and cons.
>
The con being it would take up too much space? I would think there are many cons to not including "ally" when the ally symbol is shown if the idea is to explain the symbols.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > First, I assume the word “reminder” is used to mean “reminder text.”
> >
> No, it means "something that helps someone remember". (Cambridge)
>
Yes, but your use of "reminder" has a specific connotation: It's text that helps someone remember something in the rulebook. This is a specific use of "reminder" that either needs to be explained in the rulebook or avoided altogether because, as of now, it is jargon the makers of VTES are using to describe text that helps someone remember something in the rulebook. Once your intended use of reminder is explained in the rulebook, it stops being jargon and becomes an official game term.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Second, “(limited)” is not a reminder, it is a key word. Key words have associated reminder text to clarify what the key word means, per the definition of reminder text here . So, if this really is a “reminder,” the text on the card should look something like “+1 bleed. Limited. (only one action modifier can be used to increase the bleed amount). (I am aware this is too wordy and not within the spirit of the new rule. Just illustrating my point that “reminder” is the wrong word to use).
> >
> It's not a keyword. Parentheses are now exclusively used to indicate that the text is optional, and usually used to remind players of the rules.
>
Awesome idea! But this should be explained that in the rulebook. How parenthetical text is used should be explained. Otherwise, people will be confused why it is there.
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Third, the subject in ““This is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder” does not appear to be the intended subject. For bleed modifiers, “this” refers to “A minion cannot use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action.” So this sentence is saying “A minion not being able to use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder.”
> > Unless “reminder” in this sentence has a meaning used by the designers that I am unaware of (which would be the jargon issue outlined above), then this sentence does not make sense. It’s the player who is being reminded, not the concept of one bleed modifier being used who is being reminded.
> >
> Correct, this is a mistake. It should read something like "Players are reminded of this limitation by the text "(limited)."
>
Ah, that is much clearer. I still think it's odd to say that players are "reminded" of something. Why is it important to point out that players are being reminded of rulebook text? Why not just say the limitation is indicated on cards by "(limited)"?
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > Third, the subject in ““This is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder” does not appear to be the intended subject. For bleed modifiers, “this” refers to “A minion cannot use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action.” So this sentence is saying “A minion not being able to use more than one action modifier card to increase a bleed during a bleed action is reminded by the "(limited)" reminder.”
> > > Unless “reminder” in this sentence has a meaning used by the designers that I am unaware of (which would be the jargon issue outlined above), then this sentence does not make sense. It’s the player who is being reminded, not the concept of one bleed modifier being used who is being reminded.
> > >
> > Correct, this is a mistake. It should read something like "Players are reminded of this limitation by the text "(limited)."
> >
> Ah, that is much clearer. I still think it's odd to say that players are "reminded" of something. Why is it important to point out that players are being reminded of rulebook text? Why not just say the limitation is indicated on cards by "(limited)"?
>
Because it's optional. Maybe it should be dropped if all the cards use it redundantly.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Ah, that is much clearer. I still think it's odd to say that players are "reminded" of something. Why is it important to point out that players are being reminded of rulebook text? Why not just say the limitation is indicated on cards by "(limited)"?
> >
> Because it's optional. Maybe it should be dropped if all the cards use it redundantly.
>
Okay, I'm having a really hard time understanding what the goal is for parenthetical text. It's being used like a keyword, with the associated reminder text in the rulebook. But we're not calling it a keyword, because removing the parenthetical text from the card is not going to affect the card at all. This is because cards that are exempt from "(limited)" will explicitly say they don't count against the limit.
So we'll have cards that will say "(limited)" in parentheses kind of functioning like a keyword pointing to an explanation in the rulebook, and other cards with a full sentence explaining "that does not count against the limit" right on the card with no parentheses.
I'd be concerned that this inconsistency in describing bleed modifier/additional strike limitations may cause confusion.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > > Ah, that is much clearer. I still think it's odd to say that players are "reminded" of something. Why is it important to point out that players are being reminded of rulebook text? Why not just say the limitation is indicated on cards by "(limited)"?
> > >
> > Because it's optional. Maybe it should be dropped if all the cards use it redundantly.
> >
> Okay, I'm having a really hard time understanding what the goal is for parenthetical text. It's being used like a keyword, with the associated reminder text in the rulebook. But we're not calling it a keyword, because removing the parenthetical text from the card is not going to affect the card at all. This is because cards that are exempt from "(limited)" will explicitly say they don't count against the limit.
>
> So we'll have cards that will say "(limited)" in parentheses kind of functioning like a keyword pointing to an explanation in the rulebook, and other cards with a full sentence explaining "that does not count against the limit" right on the card with no parentheses.
>
> I'd be concerned that this inconsistency in describing bleed modifier/additional strike limitations may cause confusion.
>
The additional strikes would/could have the same cardtext change.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
So if (limited) is merely an optional reminder text, is command of the beast errataed in some way? (I can't remember another non-limited bleed modifier atm, but this concerns them as well if such exist). EDIT: Leverage
Because currently command of the beast at superior simply says "+1 bleed". Since the reminder text is optional, this change would mean superior command of the beast is now limited since it doesn't specify its an exception?
I mean we have to errata it and have the errataed text in secret library if we wan't it to continue doing what it has done previously.
This is not a problem with cards granting additional strikes since they have always been limited as a rule. So the cards that grant unlimited add strikes (hell-for-leather, battle frenzy) already specify that they are unlimited.
> Ankha wrote:
> Because it's optional. Maybe it should be dropped if all the cards use it redundantly.
>
I think we should drop the reminder text only if we are pressed for space in the text box. Magic the gathering does this.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> So if (limited) is merely an optional reminder text, is command of the beast errataed in some way?
>
Yes.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Because currently command of the beast at superior simply says "+1 bleed". Since the reminder text is optional, this change would mean superior command of the beast is now limited since it doesn't specify its an exception?
>
Is is errated.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> So if (limited) is merely an optional reminder text, is command of the beast errataed in some way? (I can't remember another non-limited bleed modifier atm, but this concerns them as well if such exist). EDIT: Leverage
>
Quicksilver contemplation at .
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> Ankha wrote:
> Is is errated.
>
Then I suggest you get the errataed text to Secret library as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Keep up the good work!
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech