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

Help me understand: how would changing "and/or" to "and" make this particular template unintelligible? The template later says "if using." Non-American English speakers would really be confused by that? I understand "and/or" may be necessary to use on other cards. But in this template, and with "and/or" used this excessively? It's too many characters. Also, what was the discussion about semicolons?

I understand the concern about ambiguity. But you are probobaly going to introduce the same amount of ambiguity by incorprating text that is not necessary than cutting text down to the most essential parts to understand the card. Less text on cards is better. Even better than that would be less text on cards and a refined rulebook/rulings/detailed play summary page that people can use as a resource when ambiguities do arise.

Seriously, just read Mask of 1k Faces sometime. That is way too much text on one card. The same thing can be said in about 100 fewer characters, and it will be just as confusing.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Help me understand: how would changing "and/or" to "and" make this particular template unintelligible?

Because some might interpret it as requiring all the disciplines that are listed there (due to the "and"), rather than any subset, from reading the first sentence.
I know I would have asked questions if the cardtext had been "A and B and C". Questions such as "The first sentence reads it's a bleed if I have A and B and C. I don't care about the rest of the card, which affects the action rather than its declaration. What happens if I don't have all three disciplines?" Such questions that weren't asked due to the "and/or" part.

I think we are yet to find someone who doesn't get how the new template works. It's a new wording, but I haven't seen a single question that was raised by ambiguity on the new cards.

Mask is something different. If you think you can fix its cardtext, I am open for suggestions. Wholeheartedly. Also keep in mind that its current cardtext covers a good share of the rulings that were made for it. I know you can simplify it to "Only usable by another vampire. Untap the acting vampire, tap this vampire. This vampire becomes the acting vampire.", but this reopens the door to all questions that were asked. Cardtext isn't simply about what a card does, it should always integrate precision to help the players (and the judges) find the answers to questions with strict reading of what is on the table, rather than require a reference to a distant source (rulings, rulebook).

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.

Memory rift's wording should definitely be changed to "More than one discipline can be used when playing this card," as Ben Peal suggested. It is so much clearer to all, especially newbies that don't know about keystone kine. Please listen to Ben. And give Danielle Diron a special ability and remove aus from her discipline spread. Thanks

Pascal wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Help me understand: how would changing "and/or" to "and" make this particular template unintelligible?

Because some might interpret it as requiring all the disciplines that are listed there (due to the "and"), rather than any subset, from reading the first sentence.
I know I would have asked questions if the cardtext had been "A and B and C". Questions such as "The first sentence reads it's a bleed if I have A and B and C. I don't care about the rest of the card, which affects the action rather than its declaration. What happens if I don't have all three disciplines?" Such questions that weren't asked due to the "and/or" part.

Fair enough. It's funny, because I feel like "and" is clear because of the next sentence, which say "if using" for all three disciplines, and I believe this makes it clear that you can use any combination of diciplines. But the new template is definitely better anyway.

I think we are yet to find someone who doesn't get how the new template works. It's a new wording, but I haven't seen a single question that was raised by ambiguity on the new cards.

Mask is something different. If you think you can fix its cardtext, I am open for suggestions. Wholeheartedly. Also keep in mind that its current cardtext covers a good share of the rulings that were made for it. I know you can simplify it to "Only usable by another vampire. Untap the acting vampire, tap this vampire. This vampire becomes the acting vampire.", but this reopens the door to all questions that were asked. Cardtext isn't simply about what a card does, it should always integrate precision to help the players (and the judges) find the answers to questions with strict reading of what is on the table, rather than require a reference to a distant source (rulings, rulebook).

Well, my point about mask is you can put as much text on the card as you wish, but it's still going to be a confusing effect. I think half that text can be kept on the rulings page and off the card. There are plenty of cards where the effect is not obvious unless you look at the rulings page. Mask should be no different.

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.