Anthology set previews: April 17

Ankha wrote:

I'll try to answer everyone.
That being said, choices had to be made when we established the set of rules we are following. Those choices are complex and are still under progress, considering the amount of cards to review, all the special cases, and compatibility issues with older cards. Obviously, other choices that would have probably been valid too were possible.

Thanks for taking the time to answer

Ankha wrote:

With that in mind:

the1andonlime wrote:

Why doesn't Enkil Cog use the new "attached" wording? Shouldn't it say "the attached vampire" instead of "this vampire"?

Kinda feels like we're going back to the problem of inconsistent wording across cards.

Attached is an alias for "the <whatever> with this card". It's used when there are multiple actors that are similar (two vampires for instance, one acting and one being a target typically) to remove any ambiguity. If there's no ambiguity, there's no need to use it.
Enkil Cog mentions only one minion, so there's no ambiguity when refering to "this vampire".

I agree that there is no ambiguity in this case. However, I would advocate for the consistent use of rule wordings on card where it is possible, as long as it does not clutter.

In this case, referring to the attached vampire as "the attached vampire" instead of "this vampire" also makes it easier for other cards to reference "attached cards". While the rules are clear on this, "refer to the rulebook" is not something you really want to say when there is someone new at the table (you have no idea how often I need to say that even with existing players, especially returning players).