question-circle Mind of the Wilds + Telepathic Tracking

09 Jul 2019 10:16 - 09 Jul 2019 10:17 #95810 by Tadori

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.
Last edit: 09 Jul 2019 10:17 by Tadori.

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

More
09 Jul 2019 10:41 - 09 Jul 2019 11:37 #95811 by TwoRazorReign

Boris The Blade 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.
Last edit: 09 Jul 2019 11:37 by TwoRazorReign.

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

More
09 Jul 2019 12:20 #95812 by Ankha

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Boris The Blade 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
The following user(s) said Thank You: TwoRazorReign

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

More
09 Jul 2019 13:09 #95813 by Hakuron

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
Toreador Prince of Darmstadt, Heart of the Jugendstil

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

More
09 Jul 2019 13:46 - 09 Jul 2019 15:22 #95815 by TwoRazorReign

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.
Last edit: 09 Jul 2019 15:22 by TwoRazorReign.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.126 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum