environmental damage

self wrote:

I don't know why there's this aversion to admitting that the game uses keywords when it clearly does.

I'd say because there is a pathological need of doing everything backwards in the rules committee.

Ankha wrote:

You could call it "adjective" rather than "keyword" for all it matters.

Okay, so nothing in V:TES is described as a keyword. I think everybody gets that. The problem is you go off on this tangent to call "environmental" an adjective, but then later on describe "wake" as a "term." Why is wake not solely a verb but also a "term?"

The real heart of the point Lonnka was making (I think) is not necessarily that there needs to be an actual "keyword," but rather some form of identifying and describing the this mechanic of damage used in the game in a simplistic manner. I think Lonnka just happened to use "keyword" for lack of a better description, which led to your befuddling post about adjectives and verbs. All I read with your post is "I'm the rulemonger and it's an adjective!" I have no idea what this means. So I ask you, is "environmental" a term like "wake" or not? If not, how is it different? What does any of this have to do with parts of speech?

To everyone else: Yes, "keywords" exist in VTES, but they are used in unique ways that differ from preconceived notions of how a keyword would normally function; thus the term "keyword" is not used in VTES. Glad we cleared that up.

I think that what Ankha is saying is that as the "rulemonger", his posts are referenced for ruling and so he must be careful about which term he uses when speaking about rules.

So he prefers sticking to things already explained in the rulebook or on cards and "keyword" is not one of those.

But "environmental damage", "wake", or "term" are and so he prefers sticking to those.

And "wake" is a term because it is described in the "special terms" section of the rulebook.

As I see it, if Ankha is consistent in the vocabulary he uses (in the official forum and in the rulebook) it allows people looking for answers about rules to have some kind of consistency in what is what.

If I remember correctly, it was not the case with LSJ and it lead to some confusions in some cases (for example, environmental damage which was never explained in the rulebook before and was used in a lot of rulings).