Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Innovation» Forums » Rules

Subject: Need to clarify the "I"s and "you"s on the cards rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
Avatar
The pronouns on the cards are confusing as sometimes "I" refers to the player who has the card in his play area and sometimes "you" refers to this person. An example of the latter case is Calendar:

Quote:
If you have more cards in your score pile than in your hand, draw two [3].


As well as Currency:

Quote:
You may return any number of cards from your hand. If you do, draw and score a [2] for every different value of card you returned.


But what happens with a card like Enterprise?

Quote:
I demand you transfer a top non-purple card with a [leaf] from your board to my board. If you do, draw and meld a [4].


Who is drawing and melding the [4]? The player who gave away the non-purple card or the player who received it? The game includes many cards along the lines of Enterprise, and my opponent and I were each baffled whenever we confronted one of them. Given the number of powerful effects in the game, we could see these cards as being more of the same; on the other hand, perhaps these cards are giving the attacked player compensation to somewhat make up for the loss. Which reading is correct?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
KAS
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Henry Rhombus wrote:
The pronouns on the cards are confusing as sometimes "I" refers to the player who has the card in his play area and sometimes "you" refers to this person. An example of the latter case is Calendar:

Quote:
If you have more cards in your score pile than in your hand, draw two [3].


As well as Currency:

Quote:
You may return any number of cards from your hand. If you do, draw and score a [2] for every different value of card you returned.


But what happens with a card like Enterprise?

Quote:
I demand you transfer a top non-purple card with a [leaf] from your board to my board. If you do, draw and meld a [4].


Who is drawing and melding the [4]? The player who gave away the non-purple card or the player who received it? The game includes many cards along the lines of Enterprise, and my opponent and I were each baffled whenever we confronted one of them. Given the number of powerful effects in the game, we could see these cards as being more of the same; on the other hand, perhaps these cards are giving the attacked player compensation to somewhat make up for the loss. Which reading is correct?
I agree it can be confusing. The way we have been playing is that any use of the word "you" on a "demand" dogma action refers to the "attacked" player. To help with the meaning, we generally have the current player read it verbatim to the “attacked” player(s).

When used on the "non-demand" dogma actions, we have interpreted the word "you" as applying to the owner of the card doing the action.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kneumann wrote:
Henry Rhombus wrote:
The pronouns on the cards are confusing as sometimes "I" refers to the player who has the card in his play area and sometimes "you" refers to this person. An example of the latter case is Calendar:

Quote:
If you have more cards in your score pile than in your hand, draw two [3].


As well as Currency:

Quote:
You may return any number of cards from your hand. If you do, draw and score a [2] for every different value of card you returned.


But what happens with a card like Enterprise?

Quote:
I demand you transfer a top non-purple card with a [leaf] from your board to my board. If you do, draw and meld a [4].


Who is drawing and melding the [4]? The player who gave away the non-purple card or the player who received it? The game includes many cards along the lines of Enterprise, and my opponent and I were each baffled whenever we confronted one of them. Given the number of powerful effects in the game, we could see these cards as being more of the same; on the other hand, perhaps these cards are giving the attacked player compensation to somewhat make up for the loss. Which reading is correct?
I agree it can be confusing. The way we have been playing is that any use of the word "you" on a "demand" dogma action refers to the "attacked" player. To help with the meaning, we generally have the current player read it verbatim to the “attacked” player(s).

When used on the "non-demand" dogma actions, we have interpreted the word "you" as applying to the owner of the card doing the action.




This can be explained better in the rules, I apologize. The answer given here is correct -- when executing a demand action, read it aloud to the player(s) you are attacking. So yes, the 4 draw is a compensation for the attack.

Everything in a demand effect is done by the attacked player.

The 'you' in a non-demand effect is the player executing (or sharing) the effect.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCarthy
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems very simple to me.

"You" is always the player executing the ability.

"I" refers to the person who activated the card, if it's a demand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
Avatar
SevenSpirits wrote:
It seems very simple to me.

"You" is always the player executing the ability.

"I" refers to the person who activated the card, if it's a demand.


Except that in an "I demand you..." situation, the owner of the card is the one executing the ability – I'm the one making the demand – and "you" does not refer to this person.

Thanks for the answer, Chris. You seem to have edited the rules for conciseness, but I think you need a few more pages to give examples, explain more terminology (such as what "transfer" means, how "draw" lets you jump to the next higher supply pile while "steal" refers only to a specific number, etc.), and note that card images are solely for decoration. (I didn't look through the cards beyond age 1 before playing, and I kept expecting cards to show up that would interact with the card images. Whoops. I'd suggest making the card images half the size they are now instead of the same size as the icons; it's hard to overlook the images when scanning the table, yet I should be able to overlook them since they have no effect on game play.)

I like the concept of the game so far. Now I just need to play with the correct rules!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sheamus Parkes
United States
Carmel
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Henry Rhombus wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
It seems very simple to me.

"You" is always the player executing the ability.

"I" refers to the person who activated the card, if it's a demand.


Except that in an "I demand you..." situation, the owner of the card is the one executing the ability – I'm the one making the demand – and "you" does not refer to this person.


I almost posted this too, but when you stop and think... the person actually DOING the action is still "you". "I" is executing the action, but the one performing the results is still "you".


I do however agree that the rules need expanded and examples are the most needed bit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
Avatar
Isamoor wrote:
I almost posted this too, but when you stop and think... the person actually DOING the action is still "you". "I" is executing the action, but the one performing the results is still "you".


The second sentence of Enterprise is "If you do, draw and meld a [4]." Who's the subject of the main clause? If you transfer a card to me, do I get to draw and meld a [4] because the "if" statement is satisfied? Or do you?

The subject needs to be stated or the rules need to provide examples in order to avoid confusion. The game is already tricky enough with all the possible effects on the table and on the cards in my hand. Players don't also need to be puzzling over what those effects precisely do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Basically, what needs to be conveyed in the rules is that in a non-demand effect, the card is talking to you. In a demand effect, you are talking to the attacked player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCarthy
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Henry Rhombus wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
It seems very simple to me.

"You" is always the player executing the ability.

"I" refers to the person who activated the card, if it's a demand.


Except that in an "I demand you..." situation, the owner of the card is the one executing the ability – I'm the one making the demand – and "you" does not refer to this person.


You're not listening.

The Rules wrote:
Dogma effects with I demand are offensive effects that some of your opponents may be forced to perform. Specifically, each opponent with less of the featured icon than you must execute the action, one by one going clockwise from you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
Avatar
SevenSpirits wrote:
Henry Rhombus wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
It seems very simple to me.

"You" is always the player executing the ability.

"I" refers to the person who activated the card, if it's a demand.


Except that in an "I demand you..." situation, the owner of the card is the one executing the ability – I'm the one making the demand – and "you" does not refer to this person.


You're not listening.

The Rules wrote:
Dogma effects with I demand are offensive effects that some of your opponents may be forced to perform. Specifically, each opponent with less of the featured icon than you must execute the action, one by one going clockwise from you.


Yes, my opponent(s) will be transfering the non-purple card to me – that's clear – but the second sentence is not clearly an "offensive effect." Having the opponent draw and meld a card is often a good thing, so I didn't view that as necessarily being part of the attack, instead viewing it as a possible bonus for the player who orchestrates a successful attack.

Again, the sentence is ambiguous as written, even with the rule that you point to. The solution: Specify the subject, or include examples in the rules. I'm glad you were able to suss out what to do with these types of cards, but you're won't be sitting at the side of all those who purchase the game in the future. The best solution is to avoid ambiguities so that no one has to question who does what when. Chris seems glad to hear such suggestions, and I'm looking forward to a more usable game in the months to come.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Henry Rhombus wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
Henry Rhombus wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
It seems very simple to me.

"You" is always the player executing the ability.

"I" refers to the person who activated the card, if it's a demand.


Except that in an "I demand you..." situation, the owner of the card is the one executing the ability – I'm the one making the demand – and "you" does not refer to this person.


You're not listening.

The Rules wrote:
Dogma effects with I demand are offensive effects that some of your opponents may be forced to perform. Specifically, each opponent with less of the featured icon than you must execute the action, one by one going clockwise from you.


Yes, my opponent(s) will be transfering the non-purple card to me – that's clear – but the second sentence is not clearly an "offensive effect." Having the opponent draw and meld a card is often a good thing, so I didn't view that as necessarily being part of the attack, instead viewing it as a possible bonus for the player who orchestrates a successful attack.

Again, the sentence is ambiguous as written, even with the rule that you point to. The solution: Specify the subject, or include examples in the rules. I'm glad you were able to suss out what to do with these types of cards, but you're won't be sitting at the side of all those who purchase the game in the future. The best solution is to avoid ambiguities so that no one has to question who does what when. Chris seems glad to hear such suggestions, and I'm looking forward to a more usable game in the months to come.


Yeah, this is another of those problems where I go "But I explain this perfectly well every time I teach someone to play!" and frown at the fact that we don't have holographic rulebooks that teach you how to play yet. Alas alas. I will make it more clear, and everyone will have fun innovating in the summer
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCarthy
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Henry Rhombus wrote:
Yes, my opponent(s) will be transfering the non-purple card to me – that's clear – but the second sentence is not clearly an "offensive effect." Having the opponent draw and meld a card is often a good thing, so I didn't view that as necessarily being part of the attack, instead viewing it as a possible bonus for the player who orchestrates a successful attack.


OK. I guess it seemed obvious to me that it is a "dogma effect with I demand" since it contains the words "I demand" and is a paragraph of text following an icon (which is how "dogma effect" is defined in the rules). But I understand that not everyone reads rules literally.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
Avatar
SevenSpirits wrote:
Henry Rhombus wrote:
Yes, my opponent(s) will be transfering the non-purple card to me – that's clear – but the second sentence is not clearly an "offensive effect." Having the opponent draw and meld a card is often a good thing, so I didn't view that as necessarily being part of the attack, instead viewing it as a possible bonus for the player who orchestrates a successful attack.


OK. I guess it seemed obvious to me that it is a "dogma effect with I demand" since it contains the words "I demand" and is a paragraph of text following an icon (which is how "dogma effect" is defined in the rules). But I understand that not everyone reads rules literally.


But I do take rules literally, which is why I'm arguing that the cards should include the subject to spell out exactly what people should do. (My wife can provide many other examples of how I take things literally and annoy her to no end.)

Again, glad it's obvious for you but my opponent and I – each of whom has played hundreds of different games – found the sentences on the cards comfusing, and the rules did not eliminate our confusion. I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that the rules are obvious when neither of us found them obvious. This type of feedback is likely what Chris wants to hear, and he can decide how much weight to give it before releasing the final edition of the game later in 2010.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sheamus Parkes
United States
Carmel
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Henry Rhombus wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
Henry Rhombus wrote:
Yes, my opponent(s) will be transfering the non-purple card to me – that's clear – but the second sentence is not clearly an "offensive effect." Having the opponent draw and meld a card is often a good thing, so I didn't view that as necessarily being part of the attack, instead viewing it as a possible bonus for the player who orchestrates a successful attack.


OK. I guess it seemed obvious to me that it is a "dogma effect with I demand" since it contains the words "I demand" and is a paragraph of text following an icon (which is how "dogma effect" is defined in the rules). But I understand that not everyone reads rules literally.


But I do take rules literally, which is why I'm arguing that the cards should include the subject to spell out exactly what people should do. (My wife can provide many other examples of how I take things literally and annoy her to no end.)

Again, glad it's obvious for you but my opponent and I – each of whom has played hundreds of different games – found the sentences on the cards comfusing, and the rules did not eliminate our confusion. I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that the rules are obvious when neither of us found them obvious. This type of feedback is likely what Chris wants to hear, and he can decide how much weight to give it before releasing the final edition of the game later in 2010.


Sadly, we played Macao right before our game of Innovation today. The Innovation cards were already leaps and bounds more precise than the Macao cards.

I think the Innovation cards could be a little cleaner and consistent. I'm actually a little confused on the 2-part cards sometimes. Do you go around the table once for each part or go around the table and each person execute both parts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCarthy
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Henry Rhombus wrote:
But I do take rules literally, which is why I'm arguing that the cards should include the subject to spell out exactly what people should do. (My wife can provide many other examples of how I take things literally and annoy her to no end.)

Again, glad it's obvious for you but my opponent and I – each of whom has played hundreds of different games – found the sentences on the cards comfusing, and the rules did not eliminate our confusion. I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that the rules are obvious when neither of us found them obvious. This type of feedback is likely what Chris wants to hear, and he can decide how much weight to give it before releasing the final edition of the game later in 2010.


I am trying to convince you the rules are precise and accurate, not necessarily obvious. I'm doing this because you are under the impression that they are not. This is why I have been citing rules that directly answer the things you said were unclear.

I agree that feedback is useful to Chris, because it's good for more people to understand the rules correctly without having to ask questions. However, you are also implying that the rules provided actually leave something out. If they do, you should definitely tell Chris what it is!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
Avatar
Isamoor wrote:
Sadly, we played Macao right before our game of Innovation today. The Innovation cards were already leaps and bounds more precise than the Macao cards.

I think the Innovation cards could be a little cleaner and consistent. I'm actually a little confused on the 2-part cards sometimes. Do you go around the table once for each part or go around the table and each person execute both parts?


I believe this was answered in another thread, with the answer being to go around the table once for each part.

Agreed on the poorly written Macao cards. I went so far as to use Macao as an example of poor parallelism in a Boardgame News column in Feb. 2010. The rules state that you can use any card that you've activated only once per turn, yet the cards aren't written to match this restriction (in addition to being confusing or ambiguous in many other ways). Very sloppy production from Rio Grande.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
designer
badge
Avatar
SevenSpirits wrote:
I am trying to convince you the rules are precise and accurate, not necessarily obvious. I'm doing this because you are under the impression that they are not. This is why I have been citing rules that directly answer the things you said were unclear.

I agree that feedback is useful to Chris, because it's good for more people to understand the rules correctly without having to ask questions. However, you are also implying that the rules provided actually leave something out. If they do, you should definitely tell Chris what it is!


And that's what I've done several times already up-thread, noting that a missing subject in the second sentence makes it unclear who should be taking the action. Chris has already acknowledged this, writing "This can be explained better in the rules, I apologize."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCarthy
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Henry Rhombus wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
I am trying to convince you the rules are precise and accurate, not necessarily obvious. I'm doing this because you are under the impression that they are not. This is why I have been citing rules that directly answer the things you said were unclear.

I agree that feedback is useful to Chris, because it's good for more people to understand the rules correctly without having to ask questions. However, you are also implying that the rules provided actually leave something out. If they do, you should definitely tell Chris what it is!


And that's what I've done several times already up-thread, noting that a missing subject in the second sentence makes it unclear who should be taking the action. Chris has already acknowledged this, writing "This can be explained better in the rules, I apologize."


Please stop implying that Chris' acknowledgement of your confusion means it's impossible to determine what the card does.

That sentence is not ambiguous. Grammatically it's a command; it has an implied "you".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Vessenes
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
One laborious but effective solution would be to retemplate all beneficial actions to use first person. For example...

"I draw and meld a 5"

That's pretty non-standard for board game text, but it makes it very clear who pronouns refer to. "I" always refers to the activator" and "you" always refers to someone affected by an "I demand".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bigney
United States
Kingston
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tedv wrote:
One laborious but effective solution would be to retemplate all beneficial actions to use first person. For example...

"I draw and meld a 5"

That's pretty non-standard for board game text, but it makes it very clear who pronouns refer to. "I" always refers to the activator" and "you" always refers to someone affected by an "I demand".


That's what Blue Moon does, for example.
That said, I don't find the "I/you" stuff in Innovation inconsistent--it just needs to be kept in mind that demands always work a certain way, and all other powers another.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe if I put forth in the rules that non-demands are talking to you, the activating or sharing player, and that demands are stated by you to the victim, it will be sufficient.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCarthy
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
angelkurisu wrote:
I believe if I put forth in the rules that non-demands are talking to you, the activating or sharing player, and that demands are stated by you to the victim, it will be sufficient.


Yeah, that should be good.
 
 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.