Anthology set previews: April 10

A few queries about Field Training. To those reading this post, please note that I have my copy editor hat on with this post and am in no way meaning to criticize the fantastic work done with these new cards.

Field training states:

"Unlock this vampire, choose a Discipline they have at superior and put this card on another ready non-titled vampire you control. The attached vampire is considered anarch (and Independent), and gets +1 level of the chosen Discipline. If the attached vampire changes sect, burn this card. A vampire can have only one Field Training."

First, having "this vampire" and then referring to the subject with the singular they is idiomatically speaking something a native English speaker will find awkward. In all cases, the native speaker would use "it" when referring to something other than a specific human being (wherein they would use the gender-specific he or she because that information is known). For example, "Unlock this dog, choose a discipline it has...". A native English speaker would never use singular they when referring to a specific dog, and they wouldn't use it when referring to a specific vampire either. Is there a reason not to use "it" in this situation?

Second, the text says "put this card on," and then it later states "the attached vampire." Why not say "Attach this card to"? Is there a reason to retain "put this card on"? Putting something on something else and attaching something to something else are not the same thing. Therefore it's a bit of a leap in logic to say "put this card on" in one sentence and in the next sentence to say "The attached vampire." Now, the new text in the rulebook does explain things nicely, making this is a relatively minor detail. But, using "attach this card to" perhaps would allow one to understand the concept of “attach” better just from a cold read of the card text alone.

Last, some questions about punctuation: is there a reason not to use the serial comma after "superior" in the first sentence? And in the second sentence, is there a reason for the comma after "(and Independent)"? There should not be a comma there because it's all the same clause.

So.....


We're ditching the things Hasbro owns...


Cards are being printed....

We are for all intents and purposes in line to be back in print.

Why are complaints even coming to people's minds?
Change "tap" to "floop" and I'll notice in 3 mons because we appear to have returned to print. And that is what matters.

Ankha wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

First, having "this vampire" and then referring to the subject with the singular they is idiomatically speaking something a native English speaker will find awkward.

It's typically in that situation that the singular they is used:

"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they)

Your example says "The patient." It is not referring to a specific patient (eg, This patient). The card says "This vampire." It is referring to a specific vampire. Using singular they in this context is awkward.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

In all cases, the native speaker would use "it" when referring to something other than a specific human being (wherein they would use the gender-specific he or she because that information is known). For example, "Unlock this dog, choose a discipline it has...". A native English speaker would never use singular they when referring to a specific dog, and they wouldn't use it when referring to a specific vampire either. Is there a reason not to use "it" in this situation?

Vampires are here treated like human beings.

The point is the singular they is being used to refer to one specific vampire, who is either a he or she, and this is misusing the singular they. It's awkward for a native speaker to use the singular they to refer to something other than a gender nonspecific person, such as "the patient" or "the vampire." Thus, the only fix I see is to treat specific vampires as something not human like dogs, and refer to them as "it."

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Second, the text says "put this card on," and then it later states "the attached vampire." Why not say "Attach this card to"? ... But, using "attach this card to" perhaps would allow one to understand the concept of “attach” better just from a cold read of the card text alone.

That was an option. But if you attach the card to the vampire, then it's the card that is attached, not the vampire and "the attached vampire" doesn't match logically.

How so? I don't understand how it doesn't match logically. It's clear you are attaching the card to the vampire, and you are not attaching the vampire to the card, but that they are attached to one another.

Either way, this slight contradiction that is solved by the rulebook: "If a card is put on another, both are considered attached to each other.", so it was easier to keep it that way.

Right. I said as much. It'd just be nice if a cold read of the card text explained everything one needed to know without having to look at the rulebook.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Last, some questions about punctuation: is there a reason not to use the serial comma after "superior" in the first sentence? And in the second sentence, is there a reason for the comma after "(and Independent)"? There should not be a comma there because it's all the same clause.

There's no strict rule, as long as there's no ambiguity.

There is ambiguity. Do you unlock the vampire, then choose a discipline and put the card on the vampire at the same time (no serial comma)? Or do you unlock the vampire, then choose the discipline, then put the card on the vampire (serial comma)? As for the other comma being misused after "(and Independent)," there probably should be a strict rule about misusing commas.