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

mjvtes521 wrote:

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

Oh yeah, I'm not saying the new template is fundamentally wrong or anything. I just think that the less text on the card, the better.

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.

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.