$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 133.23

7,795 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
49.1% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Mage Knight Board Game: The Lost Legion» Forums » Rules

Subject: Dodge and Weave (advanced effect) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
I know some might find this is pedantic... but it needs clarification
Dodge and Weave - Advanced effect wrote:
Reduce one enemy attack by 4 or two attacks of one or two enemies by 2. Gain Attack 2 in the Attack phase if you did not add any Wounds to your hand in the previous combat phases.

This card can be read to reduce 4 attacks by 2. (actually I think it has to be read this way, however I don't think that's the intent.)

I think what is meant is: "Reduce 2 attacks by 2, these attacks may come from different enemies." or even "Reduce 2 attacks by 2" would have been better




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Suita
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
mbmbmbmbmb
Bart_aus wrote:
I know some might find this is pedantic... but it needs clarification
Dodge and Weave - Advanced effect wrote:
Reduce one enemy attack by 4 or two attacks of one or two enemies by 2.

This card can be read to reduce 4 attacks by 2. (actually I think it has to be read this way ...

It certainly doesn't have to be.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
Thanks, though that's not really a helpful answer. How are you reading it to avoid my example? I read the card in 3 distinct ways. (Again: I don't think this is what was meant when the card was written)

1. Reduce one enemies attack by 4.
or
2. Reduce two attacks from 1 enemy by 2.
or
3. Reduce two attacks from 2 enemies by 2.

Though perhaps this is just my long lost experience as a programmer speaking.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Suita
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
mbmbmbmbmb
"Reduce one attack by 4, or two attacks (of one or two enemies) by 2."

Basically, rules should be written so they can't be misinterpreted, so it's far from ideal, but saying there is one way to parse it is false. Perhaps the exception is if it were a computer program, I don't know, but we're not talking about a computer program, just English.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Suita
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
mbmbmbmbmb
To clarify further, it is actually quite natural to read it as two options, equally weighted:

1) Reduce one attack
or
2) Reduce two attacks

Everything else modifying or qualifying one of those two options:

1) by 4
2) of one or two enemies by 2
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Never read it that way or even thought that could be the meaning. Then again, not a native speaker...

I think it is obvious what is meant and interpreting "two attacks of two enemies" as "two attacks of each of two enemies" is quite a stretch.

And I would strongly disagree that it "has to be read this way".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
corum irsei
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cityofsolitude wrote:
Never read it that way or even thought that could be the meaning. Then again, not a native speaker...

I think it is obvious what is meant and interpreting "two attacks of two enemies" as "two attacks of each of two enemies" is quite a stretch.

And I would strongly disagree that it "has to be read this way".
+1. I'm also not a native English speaker, though...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Georg D.
Germany
Höxter
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are really pedantic you can reduce one attack more.
The word 'or' leaves room for interpretation. In propositional logic it means one or the other or both. To be precise the card text should use 'either ... or'.cool




(Just kidding! Card texts should stay readable - overly precise language can ruin that. I doubt that anyone read it as an including 'or'.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
Benkyo wrote:
"Reduce one attack by 4, or two attacks (of one or two enemies) by 2."

Basically, rules should be written so they can't be misinterpreted, so it's far from ideal, but saying there is one way to parse it is false. Perhaps the exception is if it were a computer program, I don't know, but we're not talking about a computer program, just English.

Sure but you need to add extra parentheses to separate off some text text, without which (in English) your meaning does not exist.

What you've invited us to accept is that text inside those added parentheses is not relevant, (something I agree with) but it's not how it's read without them being present.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bart_aus wrote:
Sure but you need to add extra parentheses to separate off some text text, without which (in English) your meaning does not exist.


That's wrong. I'm also a native English speaker, and all of these parsings are valid. English is highly ambiguous about how to attach prepositional phrases. There are often many possibilities, most of which are ruled out by domain knowledge rather than grammatical rules. This is one of those cases: there are multiple parsings, but only one that really fits with the logic of the game (and that's not the one you're hewing to).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
It's not the prepositional phrase which is problematic it's the conjunction, which does not moderate the number of attacks to be reduced but the number of enemies the effect is applied too.

Yes knowledge of the game implies that the card is not played as I see it's written, I disagree that the cards meaning is clearly worded.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bart_aus wrote:
I disagree that the cards meaning is clearly worded.


Then you're disagreeing with a strawman. Making up things that no one said just in order to disagree with them is not constructive or helpful.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Suita
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
mbmbmbmbmb
Bart_aus wrote:
I disagree that the cards meaning is clearly worded.

No-one is arguing that it is clearly worded. I'm arguing against your initial statement of "I think it has to be read this way", and nothing more than that. It does not have to be read that way.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Kneipp
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
The initial coordinating conjunction separates two independent clauses. The latter coordinating conjunction separates adjectives modifying the number of enemies. Thus...

A) Reduce 1 enemy attack by 4.
OR
B) Reduce 2 attacks by 1 enemy by 2.
OR
C) Reduce 2 attacks by 2 enemies by 2.

But, then we have the explicit qualification of reducing 2 attacks (parts B and C), as opposed to reducing UP TO 2 attacks. The intent seems obvious, in that either 1 or 2 separate attacks can be reduced. Thus...

A) Reduce 1 enemy attack by 4.
OR
B) Reduce [up to] 2 attacks by 1 enemy by 2 [per attack].
OR
C) Reduce [up to] 2 attacks by 2 enemies by 2 [per attack].

This, though, highlights a potential alternate reading of part C. If 2 separate enemies each attack twice, and you can reduce each attack by 2, you end up with a total reduction of 8. This latter does not seem to be the intention, but it is a valid interpretation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.