Mind of the Wilds + Telepathic Tracking

Ankha wrote:

If you put a full stop the way you suggest, it's no longer correlated to the "if..." condition.

What is wrong with:
"If this action is blocked, this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of resulting combat. Minion that blocked this action cannot strike to end combat."

Well, I'd still think it's confusing with your change. The second sentence doesn't give any information about the duration of the effect, which is really the problem with the current card text. I do not think the problem is related to punctuation.

Mind of the Wilds is using a sentence written in conditional tense (easy to spot in English by sentences starting with "If"): "If this action is blocked, this vampire gets an optional maneuver in the first round of the resulting combat, and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat."

The structure when using this tense is "If this happens, [then] this happens." This card follows this structure. By breaking from this structure, you'd have to find another less efficient way to describe the effects than just using a single sentence in conditional tense. And this is what your change is doing.

You seem to be arguing that the problem is the comma before the sentence describing the "cannot strike to end combat" effect. Please note that the comma here is being used to separate two main clauses connected by a coordinating conjunction ("and"), which is correct use of punctuation and common usage in English composition. So I would not argue that the problem is with the use of a comma here. However, I would argue that the "cannot strike to end combat" effect needs to specify the duration. For example "..., and the blocking minion cannot strike to end combat [for the rest of this action]."

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Well, I'd still think it's confusing with your change. The second sentence doesn't give any information about the duration of the effect, which is really the problem with the current card text.

It is an action modifier, therefore by default it applies for the duration of the action.
Conditioning doesn't say anything about the duration of the effect. Why would this be any more confusing?

The only special part is the first part which is restricted (happens only during the first round, but I guess can still apply to two or more separate combats hypothetically)

Bloodartist wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Well, I'd still think it's confusing with your change. The second sentence doesn't give any information about the duration of the effect, which is really the problem with the current card text.

It is an action modifier, therefore by default it applies for the duration of the action.

Yes, but I believe clarification would be helpful for the reader because the first part of the sentence breaks from this default. So it's good to reset that the second effect is for the duration of the action, per the default.

Conditioning doesn't say anything about the duration of the effect. Why would this be any more confusing?

Okay, maybe your change isn't more confusing. But it certainly adds more characters to the card text, which is something to avoid (note: your proposed revised text would need to repeat “If this action is blocked” before the second sentence)

Also, Conditioning isn't the best comparison. It's written as a declarative statement, directing the player to "+2 bleed". This is different than Mind of the Wilds, which is written with a sentence using conditional tense where part of the effect described on the card breaks from the default by only happening during a specific part of combat instead of the duration of the action. Had Conditioning done this and also had a second effect that happens during combat, it would have been helpful to the reader to clarify the second effect is for the duration of the action (thus not breaking from the default).

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Yes, but I believe clarification would be helpful for the reader because the first part of the sentence breaks from this default. So it's good to reset that the second effect is for the duration of the action, per the default.

The reason I didn't write clarification for the second sentence, is because a default exists (Action modifiers apply for the entire duration of the action, and by extension combat), and any extra would be superfluous. Goal is to reduce card text, like you said.

Also: The text specifies a specific situation: This action is blocked:
"Minion that blocked this action"
The text refers to the combat resulting from block (can't strike outside combat), and since it doesn't specify duration it applies for the entire duration of combat. This is as concise and clear as I can make it personally. The problem with the original text was putting both a conditional effect and an unconditional effect in the same sentence. This is why I always read it wrong until now.

VTES in general should utilize default rulings more in card texts. It would reduce the amount of text and would make cards easier to understand in the sense that then players only need to pay attention to the deviations from the default ruling.

Also, Conditioning isn't the best comparison.

Conditioning is an action modifier. It is a good comparison as far as the default ruling is concerned in my opinion.

Bloodartist wrote:

The reason I didn't write clarification for the second sentence, is because a default exists (Action modifiers apply for the entire duration of the action, and by extension combat), and any extra would be superfluous. Goal is to reduce card text, like you said.

Okay, we can agree to disagree here. I believe this line of thinking is the reason for the original card text; it was assumed the reader would know to revert to the default for the second effect. I still think using the conditional tense with clarification as I've outlined is optimal, but at least we do agree that the original text needs to change.

Conditioning is an action modifier. It is a good comparison as far as the default ruling is concerned in my opinion.

Again, we can agree to disagree. Yes, it's an action modifier, but it's one with vastly different effect and prose. This is mainly what I'm looking at when making comparisons between cards, and therefore would not make the same comparison in this specific context of why a full stop is needed on Mind of the Wilds.