Libertas when you atempt to bloock

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Lönkka wrote: Has there been a ruling/clarification for Libertas (from LSJ)?

www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77292-libertas-when-you-atempt-to-bloock?start=0#92789 includes it, where - when asked if the effect persists to the end of the action after the failed block - LSJ said no


OK, thanks.
That's about it then.

I missed that earlier silly me!


Still I'm saying that how the card works when blocking is _highly_ confusing.

-Not many cards work the way Libertas does (usable only when the block would be successful).
-Wording is so similar to Blessing of Chaos, yet handled the exact opposite way.
-While I'm not that big on nitpicky rules knowledge I'd say that my english is reasonably good. I think the choice of wording here, especially since there is no shortage on the card for space, is causing most of the problem and I can imagine how much misunderstandings the cards causes among especially the ESL players with not that solid command of english language and grammar.

With slightly more clear wording the should be way more explicit. Ain't that the big idea? To make the cards more easy to understand.

Luckily this isn't a card that sees a _lot_ of gameplay (although it should be a staple among many an anarch deck).

Lönkka wrote: Still I'm saying that how the card works when blocking is _highly_ confusing.

-Not many cards work the way Libertas does (usable only when the block would be successful).

New cards that work differently to previous cards are created all the time, yes.

Lönkka wrote: -Wording is so similar to Blessing of Chaos, yet handled the exact opposite way.

Changing one or two words in an English sentence can significantly change the meaning, yes.

Lönkka wrote: -While I'm not that big on nitpicky rules knowledge I'd say that my english is reasonably good.

You say this:
But that cannot possibly be true. Card text:

If "while" applies only to "acting", then lets remove that whole chunk.

In fact, "while this anarch is" is clearly essential for each of:

- while this anarch is acting,
- while this anarch is attempting to block,
- while this anarch is in combat.

Lönkka wrote: I think the choice of wording here, especially since there is no shortage on the card for space, is causing most of the problem and I can imagine how much misunderstandings the cards causes among especially the ESL players with not that solid command of english language and grammar.

With slightly more clear wording the should be way more explicit. Ain't that the big idea? To make the cards more easy to understand.

Cards can, of course, be made more explicit and clearer, but if you are proceeding from the principle that "while this vampire is X, Y or Z" means that the "while" applies only to X, when each of X, Y and Z relies on the "is" for grammatical sense, there is no reasonable way to proceed. This isn't V:TES doing something strained and bizarre with grammar (as all games can do, once you get into weird jargon clashing awkwardly), it's just how English grammar functions at a very basic level.

To be fair, compared to many other examples the comparison between Blessing of Chaos and Libertas and their wording is very different from ones like Black Cat, which was discussed in (almost unneccessary) length some time ago.

The different effects are clear within the boundaries of English AND game terms, even though they are different. It is clear, if you read them, that the effects are different. They are even explicit.

There is a world of difference between this example and that of Black Cat, where, in all honesty, within both English and game terms it could be interpreted differently than it is ruled. Once you know how it _should_ be read, it kind of makes sense. But it could be, with the knowledge most have, interpreted differently.

I have no trouble with interpreting the cards' text. Logically they could have the same effect, but there is no confusion in the actual effect.

I guess I'm trying to say that there are two separate issues to consider.

1) simplifying some cards and their effects to work the exact same way, instead of just similarly. This would require errata. The text is clear, but for simplicity (in game as a whole, comparing similarly working cards) they could be errated to work exactly the same.

2) clarifying card texts with updated or extra text to make them clearer to read and their effects more explicit. Black Cat is (in my opinion) a prime example of this. This would not be errata as such, but improving on the English on the cards.

Two separate topics, those two. As far as I understand it, Lönkka would be advocating option 1. There is no issue with option 2 in Libertas' case.

I am 100% of the opinion that VtES would benefit from both 1 and 2 on many cards. Which, of course depends on the cards themselves. Things like Ammo cards being 'used' instead of 'played' would be both. Black Cat should be either, not both. Within the latest batches of BC bundles there was a card (can't remember which from the top of my head) which would've really benefited from using oxford commas. As opposed to some view points, I don't think adding keywords to card texts would solve either issue in the long run.

Using good, clear, common English would in my opinion be top priority. User centered approach should be used.

Libertas, in my opinion, does not suffer from lingual problems.

Kraus wrote: The different effects are clear within the boundaries of English AND game terms, even though they are different. It is clear, if you read them, that the effects are different. They are even explicit.

Libertas is clear. Blessing of Chaos is ambiguous. Besides, requiring extra tracking of the game history is a fundamental design flaw in a board / card game. The game state is supposed to be on the table, that is the whole point of playing such a game int he first place.

jamesatzephyr wrote: it's just how English grammar functions at a very basic level.

I have to disagree with this one.

Lönkka wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote: it's just how English grammar functions at a very basic level.

I have to disagree with this one.

Here is a sentence:
This is a simple statement that applies at all times. It tells you not to disturb your father, with no qualifications.

However, we now want to refine that to only apply at certain times or in certain situations. To do so, we choose to use a dependent clause. That clause will provide situations when the main clause applies. It's okay to disturb your father if he is not singing, and if he is not reading, and if he is not in the bath. How do we construct that dependent clause:

This obviously doesn't make sense on its own, as it is a dependent clause, but it includes the subject of the clause (he) and a verb.

We then attach the dependent clause to the main clause by use of a subordinating conjunction - in this case, "while".

The subordinating conjunction applies to the entire dependent clause.

If "while" does not apply to "is... attempting to block" or "is... in combat", then you have no subordinating conjunction to introduce the dependent clause. That's not how English grammar works.



In English, if you want a subordinating conjunction to apply to one of the situations but not the others, you can set up multiple different dependent clauses and provide them as alternatives, each with their own subordinating conjunction.



You can of course also introduce dependent clauses with a relative pronoun (e.g. "which", "that", "who"), but that's not relevant here.