Work-In-Progress preview of the upcoming Anarch-themed set

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.

"+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."

This would not resemble the effect of "Aire of Elation" for me.
I would read it: "+2 bleed. If the acting vempire is a Toreador, the bleed is for an additional +3."

Pascal wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Pascal wrote:

Regarding the semicolon, the current state of the game is unclear (no general rule, only case-by-case effects) on how they work. Here are two examples :

 +2 bleed; +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador.



Put this card in play; it becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn.



In the first example, the semicolon should only be read "or". In the second example, it should only be read "and".

That's how we know the cards work. But it does mean that ";" is very ambiguous (try replacing the semicolon in Aire of Elation with "and" ...). So we're trying to circumvent the conundrum with other wordings.

Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.

"+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."

"Put this card in play. It [This card] becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn."

For me, I don't see ambiguity with the semicolon, except for changing "it" to "this card" in the second example. However, I think changing the semicolon to ", or" in the first example and "and" in the second example would work fine.

Then they are clearly not working the same way, which I consider wrong.

Interesting point. Both include two clauses connected with semicolons. Changing both so they are connected by coordinating conjunctions instead may be clearer. I think that's the real issue.

Hakuron wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.

"+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."

This would not resemble the effect of "Aire of Elation" for me.
I would read it: "+2 bleed. If the acting vempire is a Toreador, the bleed is for an additional +3."

So, grammatically, changing the semicolons to the periods does not change the meaning because they function the same exact way when separating clauses. The card has not been reworded at all. How did changing the semicolon to a period make you interpret "additional +3 bleed" in the second clause?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Hakuron wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Hmm. I think both examples are clear. The semicolon functions like a period.

"+2 bleed. +3 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador."

This would not resemble the effect of "Aire of Elation" for me.
I would read it: "+2 bleed. If the acting vempire is a Toreador, the bleed is for an additional +3."

So, grammatically, changing the semicolons to the periods does not change the meaning because they function the same exact way when separating clauses. The card has not been reworded at all. How did changing the semicolon to a period make you interpret "additional +3 bleed" in the second clause?

Because in past rulings, separate effects occur in separate sentences (i.e. Rotschreck vs Psyche!).

So replacing the ";" with "." in Aire of Elation, I would rule it the same way as Hakuron. A Toreador playing Aire of Elation at

 would get +5 bleed not +3 bleed.

Ankha wrote:

Musing on...

1.  +2 bleed, with an additional +1 bleed if this vampire is Toreador.

2.  +2 bleed, or +3 bleed if this vampire is Toreador.

3.  +2 bleed, +3 instead if this vampire is Toreador.

2 is slightly ambiguous because one could think a Toreador could have the choice to play it for +2 bleed only (to avoid an Archon Investigation for instance).

I think 1 and 2 are fine, and I don't find either ambiguous. The comma is used incorrectly in 3 and needs to be a semicolon.

Because in past rulings, separate effects occur in separate sentences (i.e. Rotschreck vs Psyche!).

So replacing the ";" with "." in Aire of Elation, I would rule it the same way as Hakuron. A Toreador playing Aire of Elation at

 would get +5 bleed not +3 bleed.

Can you give an example with specific card text?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Because in past rulings, separate effects occur in separate sentences (i.e. Rotschreck vs Psyche!).

So replacing the ";" with "." in Aire of Elation, I would rule it the same way as Hakuron. A Toreador playing Aire of Elation at

 would get +5 bleed not +3 bleed.

Can you give an example with specific card text?

Rötschreck
Master: out-of-turn. Frenzy.
Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor. This vampire does not untap as normal. During this vampire's next untap phase, burn this card.

Psyche!
Combat
Celerity
[cel] Press.
[CEL] Only usable at the end of a round when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end. After this round, begin another combat with the opposing minion.


Taking the text of Psyche at [CEL] and Rotschreck.
Rotschreack has it's 'condition for use' at the front. Then you get the sentences "Combat Ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor."

When Psyche is played, after Rotschreck the following happens:
1) Rotschreck checks its conditions and starts applying its effects.
2) Psyche! is played and stops the sentence "This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor."

So, with two sentences separated by a "." you CAN separate the effects which would mean that they apply in order and not simultaneously. With a ";" the phrases are joined or one replacing the other.

Well-Aimed Car

[pot] Strike 4R damage; only usable at long range.


Taste of Death

[qui] Strike: 1R damage. Only usable at long range.

You would argue that Well-Aimed Car is incorrect because the card is saying you can either strike for 4R damage or only use the strike at long range?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Well-Aimed Car

[pot] Strike 4R damage; only usable at long range.


Taste of Death

[qui] Strike: 1R damage. Only usable at long range.

You would argue that Well-Aimed Car is incorrect because the card is saying you can either strike for 4R damage or only use the strike at long range?

Only usable at long range is a condition of use, not an effect. So it doesn't matter how they are separated.

Both are functionally equivalent to:

Only usable at long range; Strike: 4R

and

Only usable at long range. Strike: 1R