Hi,
Question about playing Mind of the Wilds (An+Aus: If this action is blocked, this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat, and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat.) and then Telepathic Tracking (AUS: Only usable at the end of a round when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end. The round ends, but combat does not end; another round starts).
Does blocking minion can play combat ends strike in the new round of the combat.
Thanks.
> AlexSidor wrote:
> Hi,
> Question about playing Mind of the Wilds (An+Aus: If this action is blocked, this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat, and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat.) and then Telepathic Tracking (AUS: Only usable at the end of a round when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end. The round ends, but combat does not end; another round starts).
> Does blocking minion can play combat ends strike in the new round of the combat.
>
> Thanks.
>
The blocking minion cannot strike to end combat during the whole action (including other rounds, or new combats created by Psyche! for instance).
groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/-euEN_y8ius/yrDIv--PZfsJ
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat, and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat.
>
What a terrible wording. The sentences should be separated by a full stop in my opinion. I've always read that card as "minion cannot strike to end combat DURING THE FIRST ROUND".
This probably changes a number of things in my rush combat decks.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat, and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat.
> >
> What a terrible wording. The sentences should be separated by a full stop in my opinion. I've always read that card as "minion cannot strike to end combat DURING THE FIRST ROUND".
>
> This probably changes a number of things in my rush combat decks.
>
It would be a terrible wording if it were supposed to work only during the first round. If you put a full stop the way you suggest, it's no longer correlated to the "if..." condition.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Totally unclear wording. I'm so agreeing with Bloodartist.
Not everyone playing the game is an professor in english language. Plenty of foreigners are aboard in this game of ours. Whenever possible wording should be made so that they are clear and precise not ambivalent.
I fancy myself having pretty OK grasp of queen's english but this and several other examples totally lost me.
If someone brings up unclear wording it might be a good idea to consider that perhaps the wording could be made somewhat more clear.
Finnish Politics!
I would say the current text is punctuated fine, but the card text does need clarification. I believe the reader would benefit from the following addition in bold: "..., and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat for the duration of this action".
> Ankha wrote:
> If you put a full stop the way you suggest, it's no longer correlated to the "if..." condition.
>
What is wrong with:
"If this action is blocked, this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of resulting combat. Minion that blocked this action cannot strike to end combat."
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Well, I'd still think it's confusing with your change. The second sentence doesn't give any information about the duration of the effect, which is really the problem with the current card text. I do not think the problem is related to punctuation.
Mind of the Wilds is using a sentence written in conditional tense (easy to spot in English by sentences starting with "If"): "If this action is blocked, this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat, and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat."
The structure when using this tense is "If this happens, [then] this happens." This card follows this structure. By breaking from this structure, you'd have to find another less efficient way to describe the effects than just using a single sentence in conditional tense. And this is what your change is doing.
You seem to be arguing that the problem is the comma before the sentence describing the "cannot strike to end combat" effect. Please note that the comma here is being used to separate two main clauses connected by a coordinating conjunction ("and"), which is correct use of punctuation and common usage in English composition. So I would not argue that the problem is with the use of a comma here. However, I would argue that the "cannot strike to end combat" effect needs to specify the duration. For example "..., and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat [for the rest of this action]."
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Well, I'd still think it's confusing with your change. The second sentence doesn't give any information about the duration of the effect, which is really the problem with the current card text.
>
It is an action modifier, therefore by default it applies for the duration of the action.
Conditioning doesn't say anything about the duration of the effect. Why would this be any more confusing?
The only special part is the first part which is restricted (happens only during the first round, but I guess can still apply to two or more separate combats hypothetically)
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> > Well, I'd still think it's confusing with your change. The second sentence doesn't give any information about the duration of the effect, which is really the problem with the current card text.
> >
> It is an action modifier, therefore by default it applies for the duration of the action.
>
Yes, but I believe clarification would be helpful for the reader because the first part of the sentence breaks from this default. So it's good to reset that the second effect is for the duration of the action, per the default.
> Conditioning doesn't say anything about the duration of the effect. Why would this be any more confusing?
>
Okay, maybe your change isn't more confusing. But it certainly adds more characters to the card text, which is something to avoid (note: your proposed revised text would need to repeat “If this action is blocked” before the second sentence)
Also, Conditioning isn't the best comparison. It's written as a declarative statement, directing the player to "+2 bleed". This is different than Mind of the Wilds, which is written with a sentence using conditional tense where part of the effect described on the card breaks from the default by only happening during a specific part of combat instead of the duration of the action. Had Conditioning done this and also had a second effect that happens during combat, it would have been helpful to the reader to clarify the second effect is for the duration of the action (thus not breaking from the default).
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Yes, but I believe clarification would be helpful for the reader because the first part of the sentence breaks from this default. So it's good to reset that the second effect is for the duration of the action, per the default.
>
The reason I didn't write clarification for the second sentence, is because a default exists (Action modifiers apply for the entire duration of the action, and by extension combat), and any extra would be superfluous. Goal is to reduce card text, like you said.
Also: The text specifies a specific situation: This action is blocked:
"Minion that blocked this action"
The text refers to the combat resulting from block (can't strike outside combat), and since it doesn't specify duration it applies for the entire duration of combat. This is as concise and clear as I can make it personally. The problem with the original text was putting both a conditional effect and an unconditional effect in the same sentence. This is why I always read it wrong until now.
VTES in general should utilize default rulings more in card texts. It would reduce the amount of text and would make cards easier to understand in the sense that then players only need to pay attention to the deviations from the default ruling.
> Also, Conditioning isn't the best comparison.
>
Conditioning is an action modifier. It is a good comparison as far as the default ruling is concerned in my opinion.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> The reason I didn't write clarification for the second sentence, is because a default exists (Action modifiers apply for the entire duration of the action, and by extension combat), and any extra would be superfluous. Goal is to reduce card text, like you said.
>
Okay, we can agree to disagree here. I believe this line of thinking is the reason for the original card text; it was assumed the reader would know to revert to the default for the second effect. I still think using the conditional tense with clarification as I've outlined is optimal, but at least we do agree that the original text needs to change.
> Conditioning is an action modifier. It is a good comparison as far as the default ruling is concerned in my opinion.
>
Again, we can agree to disagree. Yes, it's an action modifier, but it's one with vastly different effect and prose. This is mainly what I'm looking at when making comparisons between cards, and therefore would not make the same comparison in this specific context of why a full stop is needed on Mind of the Wilds.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Bloodartist wrote:
> > The reason I didn't write clarification for the second sentence, is because a default exists (Action modifiers apply for the entire duration of the action, and by extension combat), and any extra would be superfluous. Goal is to reduce card text, like you said.
> >
> Okay, we can agree to disagree here. I believe this line of thinking is the reason for the original card text; it was assumed the reader would know to revert to the default for the second effect. I still think using the conditional tense with clarification as I've outlined is optimal, but at least we do agree that the original text needs to change.
>
The sentence used on the card is correct, but I think we can improve it indeed (Principle of least astonishment).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> The sentence used on the card is correct, but I think we can improve it indeed (Principle of least astonishment).
>
That's an interesting way to put it . But yes, if wishing to use conditional tense in this way on Mind of the Wilds, where we have two effects separated by ", and", with each effect having a unique duration, I think restating the duration of the second effect is needed even if a default exists. Even with full knowledge of the default duration for Action Modifiers, if reading this card quickly and not thinking too intently about how Action Modifiers work, one could easily make the mistake that the second effect is only for the first round of combat.
Problem is that if first round does not apply to inability to end combat then there is no duration provided. Can't end combat fist round, all combat, that action, that game, get pen and add text can't end combat?
No instructions to be found...
> Ankha wrote:
> [...]
> The sentence used on the card is correct, but I think we can improve it indeed (Principle of least astonishment).
>
Could we clarify the superior text, too, please?
»[ANI][AUS] As above, with +1 stealth.«
Is this "even if stealth is not yet needed" +1 stealth?
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > [...]
> > The sentence used on the card is correct, but I think we can improve it indeed (Principle of least astonishment).
> >
> Could we clarify the superior text, too, please?
>
> »[ANI][AUS] As above, with +1 stealth.«
> Is this "even if stealth is not yet needed" +1 stealth?
>
You're not clarifying, you're changing the card.
If stealth is not needed, you cannot play it at superior (but you can play it at inferior).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> You're not clarifying, you're changing the card.
> If stealth is not needed, you cannot play it at superior (but you can play it at inferior).
>
but that exact change was made to Form of Mist...
> Ankha wrote:
> The sentence used on the card is correct, but I think we can improve it indeed (Principle of least astonishment).
>
In general, when a qualifier applies to only part of a list, it is clearer to put the unqualified items first, e.g.:
"If this action is blocked, the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat, and this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat."
That being said, an even better solution would have be avoid stacking effects with different timings / restrictions without a compelling game need in the first place. In that particular case, would anyone have cared if the maneuver had not been restricted to first round? Maybe not worth an errata, but something to keep in mind for future cards.
VERY valid points from Boris The Blade!
It is especially so much clearer to put the unqualified items first.
But so true regarding different timings too.
Here is an old and valid proverb: KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
Finnish Politics!
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > The sentence used on the card is correct, but I think we can improve it indeed (Principle of least astonishment).
> >
> In general, when a qualifier applies to only part of a list, it is clearer to put the unqualified items first, e.g.:
>
> "If this action is blocked, the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat, and this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat."
>
No, it isn't, because "in the first round of the resulting combat" could apply to the whole sentence.
"A, and B during C" = "{A, and B} during C" (because of the Oxford comma, you can't assume that C only applies to B).
"A during C, and B" cannot be logically misunderstood as "C applies to A and B". (But you can read it quickly and make the wrong assumption, so we want to help the reader with that).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> self wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > You're not clarifying, you're changing the card.
> > If stealth is not needed, you cannot play it at superior (but you can play it at inferior).
> >
> but that exact change was made to Form of Mist...
>
Yes, but this is a totally different situation. Mind of the Wilds can be played at inferior if you don't need the stealth. At superior, like almost every action modifier, you can play it only if you need stealth.
On the other hand, Form of Mist is played 99% of the time in a situation that requires stealth (since the action was blocked, it means that the blocking minion has enough intercept), except in some corner-case situations. We removed those 1% unintuitive situation.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > self wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > > You're not clarifying, you're changing the card.
> > > If stealth is not needed, you cannot play it at superior (but you can play it at inferior).
> > >
> > >
> > but that exact change was made to Form of Mist...
> >
> Yes, but this is a totally different situation. Mind of the Wilds can be played at inferior if you don't need the stealth. At superior, like almost every action modifier, you can play it only if you need stealth.
> On the other hand, Form of Mist is played 99% of the time in a situation that requires stealth (since the action was blocked, it means that the blocking minion has enough intercept), except in some corner-case situations. We removed those 1% unintuitive situation.
>
But isn't this exactly the problem. Because exceptions like this are created, we have a lot of rules differences based only on context of the card. Isn't there a way to have a one rule for this type of cards. Because right now we have two card working very similar and the ruling is different. In my opinion DT should do everything possible to simplify the Rules, not complicate them.
And for the text of the card I suggest:
If this action is blocked, this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of combat.
Blocking minion can't strike to end combat during block resolution.
> Tadori wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > self wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ankha wrote:
> > > > You're not clarifying, you're changing the card.
> > > > If stealth is not needed, you cannot play it at superior (but you can play it at inferior).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > but that exact change was made to Form of Mist...
> > >
> > Yes, but this is a totally different situation. Mind of the Wilds can be played at inferior if you don't need the stealth. At superior, like almost every action modifier, you can play it only if you need stealth.
> > On the other hand, Form of Mist is played 99% of the time in a situation that requires stealth (since the action was blocked, it means that the blocking minion has enough intercept), except in some corner-case situations. We removed those 1% unintuitive situation.
> >
> But isn't this exactly the problem. Because exceptions like this are created, we have a lot of rules differences based only on context of the card.
>
You are comparing an action modifier card and a combat card, with two very different effects.
>
> Tadori wrote:
> Isn't there a way to have a one rule for this type of cards. Because right now we have two card working very similar and the ruling is different.
>
No, there are not of the same type, and they don't work the same at all. One is a combat ends that continues the action. The other is an action modifier that prevents from playing combat ends and gives a maneuver.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> > But isn't this exactly the problem. Because exceptions like this are created, we have a lot of rules differences based only on context of the card.
> >
> You are comparing an action modifier card and a combat card, with two very different effects.
> >
> > Tadori wrote:
> > Isn't there a way to have a one rule for this type of cards. Because right now we have two card working very similar and the ruling is different.
> >
> No, there are not of the same type, and they don't work the same at all. One is a combat ends that continues the action. The other is an action modifier that prevents from playing combat ends and gives a maneuver.
>
I didn't catch that they are different type. Thanks.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> In general, when a qualifier applies to only part of a list, it is clearer to put the unqualified items first, e.g.:
>
> "If this action is blocked, the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat, and this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat."
>
> Ankha wrote:
> No, it isn't, because "in the first round of the resulting combat" could apply to the whole sentence.
>
Let me start by saying I agree with your conclusion here.
> Ankha wrote:
> "A, and B during C" = "{A, and B} during C" (because of the Oxford comma, you can't assume that C only applies to B).
>
Again, I agree you can't assume that C only applies to B, but this normally has nothing to do with the comma. Note that there is no Oxford comma here (this would require a list of 3 items separated by commas: "A, B, and C).
You seem to be attaching meaning to a comma that may exist in VTES (or maybe in computer programming language, which your explanations tend to read like) but not in normal usage of a comma in English. Can you clarify how usage of a comma in this example makes B apply to both A and C?
> Ankha wrote:
> "A during C, and B" cannot be logically misunderstood as "C applies to A and B". (But you can read it quickly and make the wrong assumption, so we want to help the reader with that).
>
Again, the comma seems to have a unique usage in VTES related to logic with regard to VTES rules. Can you flesh out how presence of a comma makes "A during C, and B" unable to be logically misunderstood as "C applies to A and B"? And how its movement from "A, and B during C" to "A during C, and B" changes meaning from "can't assume that C only applies to B" to "cannot be logically misunderstood as C applies to A and B"?
The misunderstandings are happening because that is not how commas in English normally work; presence of a comma with a coordinating conjunction would not strictly indicate that "B" doesn't apply to both clauses. It could or could apply to either or both clauses in any order, depending on context.
It may seem like a minor and silly point, but if commas are used in a unique way in VTES, the exact usage rules should be described somewhere. This will help the reader understand how cards are written.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Non-existant user wrote:
> > In general, when a qualifier applies to only part of a list, it is clearer to put the unqualified items first, e.g.:
> >
> > "If this action is blocked, the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat, and this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat."
> >
> > Ankha wrote:
> > No, it isn't, because "in the first round of the resulting combat" could apply to the whole sentence.
> >
> Let me start by saying I agree with your conclusion here.
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > "A, and B during C" = "{A, and B} during C" (because of the Oxford comma, you can't assume that C only applies to B).
> >
> Again, I agree you can't assume that C only applies to B, but this normally has nothing to do with the comma. Note that there is no Oxford comma here (this would require a list of 3 items separated by commas: "A, B, and C).
>
You got me wrong: I was stating that one should consider "A and B during C" and "A, and B during C" to be equivalent, whether there's a comma or not, because the presence of a comma would not restrict C to B.
Same goes with "A, and B, and C during D" or "A and B and C during D".
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> You seem to be attaching meaning to a comma that may exist in VTES (or maybe in computer programming language, which your explanations tend to read like) but not in normal usage of a comma in English.
>
No.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Again, the comma seems to have a unique usage in VTES related to logic with regard to VTES rules. Can you flesh out how presence of a comma makes "A during C, and B" unable to be logically misunderstood as "C applies to A and B"?
>
It has nothing to do with the comma. If C applied to A and B, it would be either before the "A and B" group, or after, but not in the middle.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> And how its movement from "A, and B during C" to "A during C, and B" changes meaning from "can't assume that C only applies to B" to "cannot be logically misunderstood as C applies to A and B"?
>
See above. "during C and B" is not a valid proposition (it means nothing), but "A during C" means something. It's just the way terms of the same proposition are kept together.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> The misunderstandings are happening because that is not how commas in English normally work;
>
Once again, it has nothing to do with comma.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Hakuron wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > The sentence used on the card is correct, but I think we can improve it indeed (Principle of least astonishment).
> > >
> > Could we clarify the superior text, too, please?
> >
> > »[ANI][AUS] As above, with +1 stealth.«
> > Is this "even if stealth is not yet needed" +1 stealth?
> >
> You're not clarifying, you're changing the card.
> If stealth is not needed, you cannot play it at superior (but you can play it at inferior).
>
Thank you, I did not mean to change the card.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Ankha wrote:
> You got me wrong: I was stating that one should consider "A and B during C" and "A, and B during C" to be equivalent, whether there's a comma or not, because the presence of a comma would not restrict C to B.
> Same goes with "A, and B, and C during D" or "A and B and C during D".
>
Okay. I'm confused though, because if the comma has nothing to do with it, why mention it? The revision by Boris the Blade only swapped the clauses and had nothing to do with the comma. The point was the order of the clauses would clarify things (I don't agree with this). Can you clarify why you mention use of the comma in your response to Boris the Blade? Were you assuming that Boris the Blade was attaching meaning to the comma, by restricting C to B?
Anyway, forget anything about commas. You made a distinction previously:
"A, and B during C" = "{A, and B} during C": either or both A and B happen during C
"A during C, and B": Only A happens during C.
(1) Is this correct? (2) If yes, the problem I'm having here is that distinction does not apply to narrative English. "Either or both A and B happen during C" applies to both. I know in your mind (and in terms of logical form) it doesn't make sense because "during C, and B" is not a valid proposition.
So, when you say "It has nothing to do with the comma. If C applied to A and B, it would be either before the "A and B" group, or after, but not in the middle", this is correct in terms of logical form, but is too strict of a definition in terms of narrative English. Most average readers fluent in English are not logicians, so they will not make the same distinction as you made above and will read it as "either or both A and B happen during C". This is why the card is being misinterpreted by some, and why some people think the minion cannot strike to end combat on the first round only.
I'm really picking your brain here because I'm interested in knowing your thought process and am trying to get on the same page as you. Definitely not trying to annoy. Please bear with me if I misunderstood anything you posted previously.