1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Rules Questions
  7. Rules questions

file Rules questions

11 May 2018 11:56 - 11 May 2018 12:04 #86773 by TwoRazorReign
Replied by TwoRazorReign on topic Rules questions

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.


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.

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.

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)"?
Last edit: 11 May 2018 12:04 by TwoRazorReign.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 May 2018 12:16 - 11 May 2018 12:18 #86776 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Rules questions

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
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 11 May 2018 12:18 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 May 2018 21:00 - 11 May 2018 21:02 #86804 by TwoRazorReign
Replied by TwoRazorReign on topic Rules questions

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.
Last edit: 11 May 2018 21:02 by TwoRazorReign.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 May 2018 21:21 #86805 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Rules questions

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
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 May 2018 21:27 - 11 May 2018 21:35 #86806 by Bloodartist
Replied by Bloodartist on topic Rules questions
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.

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.
A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.
—Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
Last edit: 11 May 2018 21:35 by Bloodartist.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 May 2018 07:10 #86824 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Rules questions

So if (limited) is merely an optional reminder text, is command of the beast errataed in some way?

Yes.

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
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: Ankha, Kraus
  1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Rules Questions
  7. Rules questions
Time to create page: 0.105 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum