cwfgamecast
|
SH Early Deployment SA Rules LawyeringSo I know I'm being very picky and I know what the intent of the SA is but I'm asking everyone to look at the card for the SH and pay close attention to the Early Deployment SA.
The last sentence of the SA says "Each unit deployed this way can't claim an objective on turn 1 or 2."
I think we all know where I'm about to go with this. Technically it says turn 1 OR 2 meaning, and this is where I twist the intent to what one could read it as, that on turn 1 I don't claim an objective but on turn 2 I do because it said OR.
I know the intent is that on both turn 1 AND 2 the unit(s) cannot claim an objective.
What about a house rule fixing this until Wizards officially fixes it? I thought I'd make this thread to get the discussion going on this. I'm surprised nobody else has commented about the wording.
I have a saying that if you want something broken give it to a gamer. We're always finding the loop holes, gray areas, and unintended interpretations.
|
jfkziegler
|
The term OR is logically inclusive.
|
cwfgamecast
|
I hated being the one to create this thread and go "there" but felt I owed it to the community to play the rules lawyering jerk in order to clear this up.
OR really is the operative word in the SA isn't it?
I believe the intent is for the term "OR" to include turn 1 AND turn 2. But, "OR" often means a choice between 1 item and a different item.
Do I eat the Sandwich or the Pizza? Do I go for a walk on Monday or Tuesday? I don't eat the sandwich and the pizza. Nor do I walk on Monday and Tuesday. I choose one of the options and not the other.
This isn't how Wizards, in my opinion, intends the SA to be played out. I believe they mean to say "If applicable the unit cannot claim an objective on turn 1. It also cannot claim an objective on turn 2 if applicable."
Perhaps a better wording is "Each unit deployed this way can't claim an objective on turn 1 and 2."
|
Diamondback
|
Change to "can't claim before Turn Three"--less wordy.
|
cwfgamecast
|
| Diamondback wrote: | | Change to "can't claim before Turn Three"--less wordy. |
I LIKE IT!
|
Diamondback
|
Also no ambiguity, which gives a big  to the ruleslawyers and their Munchkin siblings.
Never did get my LGS owner to let me put up that "Rules-lawyers will be SHOT" sign...
|
cwfgamecast
|
They're no fun to play with but they do play accurately.
|
Diamondback
|
You missed the fun--the fun is in stomping them a new mudhole, walking it dry and then casually sauntering away, disregarding their pissing and moaning about "he can't have beaten me".
|
cwfgamecast
|
| Diamondback wrote: | | You missed the fun--the fun is in stomping them a new mudhole, walking it dry and then casually sauntering away, disregarding their pissing and moaning about "he can't have beaten me". |
I'll have to make a note of that. "Slimy mudhole using my best Yoda voice with a little 'my home this is' thrown in for good luck while I slaughter their feeble military forces."
Yeah the SH SA is worded poorly.
|
Diamondback
|
Or, as I prefer, driving a foot so far up their ass all they can taste for a week is shit 'n' shoeleather...
|
chesty
|
I thought this was going to be about how to use Early Deployment with Lead the Attack 2, Establish Screen, and/or Flank Speed to get all up in the grill of a carrier build.
As to the hair-splitting, I always resort to the "reasonable intent" standard. True, it would have been clearer to say before turn 3, but there's no way I'd let someone lawyer out of the clear intent and grab an objective on a very lame technicality.
My $2. 
|
jfkziegler
|
| chesty wrote: | | As to the hair-splitting, I always resort to the "reasonable intent" standard. True, it would have been clearer to say before turn 3, but there's no way I'd let someone lawyer out of the clear intent and grab an objective on a very lame technicality. |
I always apply the "Would I kick this person out of my gaming group?" standard. 
|
Lt_V
|
DBs suggestion eliminates any nonsense...what JFK said is correct as well, the SA is not giving you an option it is placing a restriction and that is a very different situation...I dont think the wording is so bad, but it was not the best choice...it just gives someone who wants to twist the obvious meaning using false logic an argument that sounds reasonable...but is not LOL
|
swarbs
|
I really don't understand this one at all. I know you put in your disclaimer there cwfgamecast, but I think this SA is just as clear as written as it is with DB's re-write.
Your grammatical examples also make no sense.
If I said, 'you can't run on Monday or Tuesday' you would know that you couldn't run either day, not that you could pick one day not to run in. This borrows the phrasing of the SA, which is pretty clear.
|
cwfgamecast
|
| swarbs wrote: | I really don't understand this one at all. I know you put in your disclaimer there cwfgamecast, but I think this SA is just as clear as written as it is with DB's re-write.
Your grammatical examples also make no sense.
If I said, 'you can't run on Monday or Tuesday' you would know that you couldn't run either day, not that you could pick one day not to run in. This borrows the phrasing of the SA, which is pretty clear. |
To play devil's advocate I would know that I have the option of running on the day I cannot. Since you would have informed me that I cannot run on Monday or Tuesday I would know a choice exists on which day to not run.
I could choose to not run on Monday and thereby run on Tuesday.
Clearly we all know that is not the intent but there is ambiguity. I bring these rules issues up for a variety of reasons but mainly to hopefully force Wizards to remove the gray area.
I know it is not the friendly way to play and I know that most people would not play that way and that there are ways to deal with people who are inconsiderate gamers.
They may be inconsiderate but they may actually be adhering to the rules. I know another game system has official tournaments in which things like army composition (to craft a fair and balanced army) are thrown out the window and people are encouraged to power game and rules lawyer as much as possible. One could argue, because others have with me, that it is okay to use whatever options are presented in a game if they're allowed.
I don't necessarily agree with that but they do exist and they are flaws in games. Wizards most likely doesn't mean for the intent to be how I interpreted it when crafting this thread.
BUT, I did get Wizards to fix another issue because of poor word choice. They cannot be expected to get everything correct in first go yet I'm surprised that none of the play testers saw this. Maybe they were too busy looking at the model sculpts or planning marketing strategies.
In a friendly game I would not exploit the loop holes...well maybe once to show where they are. In fact, I point out how my opponent can defeat me. In a tournament like I described from this other game system...yes I would use every error the designer left if it would help me and would expect others to do the same.
|
Diamondback
|
Couldn't have been talking marketing strategies--I've yet to see any strategy at all in their marketing! I mean, I could train a frickin' chimp to market the product better...
|
swarbs
|
I guess I can't change your mind, and I know that you guys realize what the rule was intended to be or whatever, and wouldn't play otherwise. I don't try to paint you as someone trying to pull something over, but I still don't think your argument has any semantic value at all.
You can't do this or that. Can I do this? Oh, no I see that I can't. Can I do that? Oh, no, can't do that either. I can't do this or that.
|
LuckyE77
|
Re: SH Early Deployment SA Rules Lawyering | cwfgamecast wrote: | So I know I'm being very picky and I know what the intent of the SA is but I'm asking everyone to look at the card for the SH and pay close attention to the Early Deployment SA.
The last sentence of the SA says "Each unit deployed this way can't claim an objective on turn 1 or 2."
I think we all know where I'm about to go with this. Technically it says turn 1 OR 2 meaning, and this is where I twist the intent to what one could read it as, that on turn 1 I don't claim an objective but on turn 2 I do because it said OR.
I know the intent is that on both turn 1 AND 2 the unit(s) cannot claim an objective.
What about a house rule fixing this until Wizards officially fixes it? I thought I'd make this thread to get the discussion going on this. I'm surprised nobody else has commented about the wording.
I have a saying that if you want something broken give it to a gamer. We're always finding the loop holes, gray areas, and unintended interpretations. |
You could claim it one one istead of two. 
|
cwfgamecast
|
I hate to do this but from the OED defining the word Or. I've bolded the important part and this is where I've been drawing my distinction that Wizards made a poor word choice in the SA and also why there is some ambiguity. The intent from Wizards is not for this definition of the term "or" because their intent is to be inclusive.
However, this definition is equally plausible and yet opposite of what I believe Wizards intended to be the correct usage of the word in their SA. I say this because this definition is clearly exclusive.
"2. In correlative constructions.
a. With the alternative expressed by or emphasized by prefixing to the first member, or adding after the last, the correlative adverb either (formerly other or outher): e.g. ‘you may have either an apple or a pear’; ‘I could eat an apple or a pear either’. Cf. EITHER adv. 3a, OTHER adv.2, OUTHER adv.
The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the indifference of the two (or more) things or courses; e.g. ‘you may take either the medal or its value’ = the medal and its value are equally at your option, you may take either; but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both."
I think that covers it. I hope that Wizards will fix the error so nobody can utilize the gap.
|
LuckyE77
|
| cwfgamecast wrote: | I hate to do this but from the OED defining the word Or. I've bolded the important part and this is where I've been drawing my distinction that Wizards made a poor word choice in the SA and also why there is some ambiguity. The intent from Wizards is not for this definition of the term "or" because their intent is to be inclusive.
However, this definition is equally plausible and yet opposite of what I believe Wizards intended to be the correct usage of the word in their SA. I say this because this definition is clearly exclusive.
"2. In correlative constructions.
a. With the alternative expressed by or emphasized by prefixing to the first member, or adding after the last, the correlative adverb either (formerly other or outher): e.g. ‘you may have either an apple or a pear’; ‘I could eat an apple or a pear either’. Cf. EITHER adv. 3a, OTHER adv.2, OUTHER adv.
The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the indifference of the two (or more) things or courses; e.g. ‘you may take either the medal or its value’ = the medal and its value are equally at your option, you may take either; but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both."[/b] |
I think your right.
|
defender390
|
| cwfgamecast wrote: | I hate to do this but from the OED defining the word Or. I've bolded the important part and this is where I've been drawing my distinction that Wizards made a poor word choice in the SA and also why there is some ambiguity. The intent from Wizards is not for this definition of the term "or" because their intent is to be inclusive.
However, this definition is equally plausible and yet opposite of what I believe Wizards intended to be the correct usage of the word in their SA. I say this because this definition is clearly exclusive.
"2. In correlative constructions.
a. With the alternative expressed by or emphasized by prefixing to the first member, or adding after the last, the correlative adverb either (formerly other or outher): e.g. ‘you may have either an apple or a pear’; ‘I could eat an apple or a pear either’. Cf. EITHER adv. 3a, OTHER adv.2, OUTHER adv.
The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the indifference of the two (or more) things or courses; e.g. ‘you may take either the medal or its value’ = the medal and its value are equally at your option, you may take either; but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both."[/b] |
You neglected to note there's a negative value in the original statement ("can't"). The examples you used were positive choices, not negative restrictions.
You can move on turn 1 or 2. (three choices; select one of the options or none of the options)
You can't move on turn 1 or 2. (these specific choices are not available)
Boolean logic and the English language strike again.
|
cwfgamecast
|
| defender390 wrote: | | cwfgamecast wrote: | I hate to do this but from the OED defining the word Or. I've bolded the important part and this is where I've been drawing my distinction that Wizards made a poor word choice in the SA and also why there is some ambiguity. The intent from Wizards is not for this definition of the term "or" because their intent is to be inclusive.
However, this definition is equally plausible and yet opposite of what I believe Wizards intended to be the correct usage of the word in their SA. I say this because this definition is clearly exclusive.
"2. In correlative constructions.
a. With the alternative expressed by or emphasized by prefixing to the first member, or adding after the last, the correlative adverb either (formerly other or outher): e.g. ‘you may have either an apple or a pear’; ‘I could eat an apple or a pear either’. Cf. EITHER adv. 3a, OTHER adv.2, OUTHER adv.
The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the indifference of the two (or more) things or courses; e.g. ‘you may take either the medal or its value’ = the medal and its value are equally at your option, you may take either; but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both."[/b] |
You neglected to note there's a negative value in the original statement ("can't"). The examples you used were positive choices, not negative restrictions.
You can move on turn 1 or 2. (three choices; select one of the options or none of the options)
You can't move on turn 1 or 2. (these specific choices are not available)
Boolean logic and the English language strike again. |
You're absolutely correct. That makes all the difference. Wizards never messes up and this SA does not have anything wrong with it. It does not suffer from the intent being different from the wording. I'm glad you helped me to realize my error.
Of course I'm being silly here. On a more serious note I do really appreciate you and others pointing out the faults in my fault finding. It helps to make everything better.
I would personally feel better if Wizards issued a clarification on this SA. I'm sure that if they ever issue one they will do so after the game hits the shelves and is used.
I wonder how long it'll take for their clarifications to go active. TF was less than 4 days (I think just 1 business day). What do we think will happen with FS?
To a mod: this thread could probably be moved elsewhere. I erred when I put it in this board because I'm not actually looking for an official clarification. I wanted to raise awareness and get input.
|
swarbs
|
I think its fine here, though I'll try to move it if you want. Sorry if I got too vociferous in trying to argue.
I don't think this is one that will make the Flank Speed FAQ, if an equivalent to the Task Force document is needed. That said, as soon as the WotC forum is back up, I can go ahead and post this over there (probably won't get an answer until the set comes out), and we can get an official clarification, I'll put it on my clarified SA list.
|
cwfgamecast
|
If you are happy then I am happy.
|
Lobukia
|
If I said "you can't run on Monday AND Tuesday" that seems to say you can run on Monday, but not on Tuesday, and vice versa.
So "and" is worse choice than "or" for this SA
|
cwfgamecast
|
| Lobukia wrote: | If I said "you can't run on Monday AND Tuesday" that seems to say you can run on Monday, but not on Tuesday, and vice versa.
So "and" is worse choice than "or" for this SA |
It is interesting because I don't get that at all from the word "and." I'm not sure how your phrasing equals an ability to run on Monday but not Tuesday (or on Tuesday but not Monday) when you say "you cannot run on Monday and Tuesday."
Perhaps I'm dense.
|
hansfranz
|
You can claim an objective neither on the first turn, nor the second turn! The intent was clear to me from the start. However, i always go with the hosts opinion when i am playing. Their house, their rules... House rules...
|
cwfgamecast
|
Ah more input.
I agree that is what Wizards intends with this SA but I do not believe that is what it actually says. I also believe that a gamer (notice I don't say a reasonable person) could interpret this as I have outlined in my hypothetical rules lawyering.
I'm waiting to see what sort of official rules clarifications Wizards comes out with to cover the plethora of errors they've committed in this set. There are quite a few and a very informative thread in the WAS General Discussion board.
|
Bartacus
|
Personally I can't see any ambiguity in this SA at all. Perhaps it's just me but it appears entirely clear in both intent and meaning as it is written.
I think the rules lawyers must be getting in our heads and making us worry about what nonsense they may try to spout.
You all know what to do .....
 
|
Kleintje
|
| cwfgamecast wrote: | | Lobukia wrote: | If I said "you can't run on Monday AND Tuesday" that seems to say you can run on Monday, but not on Tuesday, and vice versa.
So "and" is worse choice than "or" for this SA |
It is interesting because I don't get that at all from the word "and." I'm not sure how your phrasing equals an ability to run on Monday but not Tuesday (or on Tuesday but not Monday) when you say "you cannot run on Monday and Tuesday." |
'You can't run on Monday and Tuesday'.
This says you can't run on both days. It says nothing about the days individually. so you could run on Monday or Tuesday, or you could walk on both days.
It's all semantics, I don't believe anyone here has a genuine problem with the original wording.
|
