| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kick Butt Kido Butai
Posts: 247
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
| 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.
_________________
WaS: 64/64 (656)
WaS TF: 60/60 (511)
WaS FS: 40/40 (192)
WaS 2010 Starter 0/? - 19 Jan 10
WaS CZ: 0/40 (0) - 16 Mar 10
defender390's WaS Trade List |
|
 Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:44 am |
|
|
Stat Card Digitizer
Posts: 679
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Sneak Peeks, Pics & Stat Cards http://wargamingforums.com
WAS
Set 1: 64/64 - 252 pieces
Task Force: 60/60 - 260 pieces
Flank Speed: 40/40 - 198 pieces |
|
| Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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.
_________________
 |
|
| Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:45 am |
|
|
Stat Card Digitizer
Posts: 679
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
If you are happy then I am happy. 
_________________
Sneak Peeks, Pics & Stat Cards http://wargamingforums.com
WAS
Set 1: 64/64 - 252 pieces
Task Force: 60/60 - 260 pieces
Flank Speed: 40/40 - 198 pieces |
|
| Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:50 am |
|
|
Thank God I have done my Duty
Posts: 398
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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 good that war is so horrible, lest we grow too fond of it. -Bobby Lee
W@S BS 64/64 TF 60/60 FS 40/40 |
|
| Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:42 pm |
|
|
Stat Card Digitizer
Posts: 679
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Sneak Peeks, Pics & Stat Cards http://wargamingforums.com
WAS
Set 1: 64/64 - 252 pieces
Task Force: 60/60 - 260 pieces
Flank Speed: 40/40 - 198 pieces |
|
| Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:56 pm |
|
|
Posts: 99
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| 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... |
|
| Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
|
Stat Card Digitizer
Posts: 679
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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.
_________________
Sneak Peeks, Pics & Stat Cards http://wargamingforums.com
WAS
Set 1: 64/64 - 252 pieces
Task Force: 60/60 - 260 pieces
Flank Speed: 40/40 - 198 pieces |
|
| Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:05 am |
|
|
Posts: 137
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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 .....
  |
|
| Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:39 pm |
|
|
Posts: 33
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:38 pm |
|
|
|
