The Desperate looters card in Scattered Armies allows the top card of each opponents decks to be discarded when the looters enter or leave play.

Does this mean that when a looter enters and leaves play (in the same round for example) it triggers the effect twice? or is it only once when they enter or when they leave?

each time would be a valid trigger.

Not a bad effect for a 1 gold cost card

Surely this can only happen once as the wording on the card uses the keyword 'OR'. This is mutually exclusive eg You can have an apple OR an orange does not mean that you can have both. As soon as one side of the equation is satisfied the other is totally irrelevant as it can never happen. In the dictionary OR is defined as 1. Used to join alternatives (yes this applies) , 2. used to join rephrasings of the same thing (no they are different actions not the same thing worded in two different ways), 3. used to join alternatives when preceded by either or whether eg either yes or no (again mutually exclusive) and so on. I think all wording on cards has to objective not subjective otherwise what a mess we'd be in......

fisherdownunder said:

Card text:

Response: After Desperate Looters enters or leaves play, discard the top card of each opponent's deck.

Let's say you get paid by the hour at your job. Your boss tells you "punch the time clock when you come or go." Does that mean once you come in for the day and punch in, the obligation is fulfilled forever more? Punching the clock when you leave is totally irrelevant?

You have to consider the context as well as the wording. This is a triggered effect that a player chooses to activate. The thing to recognize here is that "after it enters or leaves play" is a play restriction defining when the Response effect can be activated by a player. It isn't a choice of what can be done, but when something can be done. The way to look at it is "this Response can be triggered when the card comes into play or when it leaves play, but not at any other time ."

Because the "or" is part of the play restriction, the mutually exclusive nature is reflected in what is happening in the game that allow the effect to be used. If the card read " Response: After Desperate Looters enters and leaves play, discard the top card of each opponent's deck," the character would have to be both entering and leaving play at the same time in order for the Response to have met it's restrictions.

"or" doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, especially when used in a list.

I'll give you a dollar after you eat an apple or an orange. You eat an apple, i give you a dollar. Two seconds later you eat an orange, i give you a dollar. nothing mutually exlucisive about that phrasology, it is just defining and listing which circumstances that will cause me to give you a dollar.

Desperate looters is listing the circumstances where it discards a card fro opponents decks.

There's a similar mistake that crops up when programming computers. For example, if I want to tell a computer to build a list of all the Davids and Johns in the phone book, I have to program it to select every name that is either a David or a John. When I see people make a mistake, it's usually because they mentally shift, without realizing it, between the end result (a list of all the Davids AND Johns) and the selection process (select the names that are either David OR John).

(As Lars and ktom explained, the card rules are all written in the form of selection criteria.)

The thing I've never been able to figure out, though, is whether the programming problem I described is a logical problem or merely a grammatical problem. In other words, is it confusing for all cultures, or is it merely confusing to English speakers because of the way English uses the words And and Or in these situations? (I suppose I should limit the question to American English as well, since for all I know, the British may have a different way of expressing these ideas.) Do any of our friends from across the sea have experience with this?

I apologise for not knowing how to include a quote from another user - or the fact that I've been drinking cider for 4 hours!!....but Lars your example is flawed. You state that you will give me a dollar if I eat an apple or if I eat an orange. You are very generous as you are willing to give me a second dollar despite satisfying the condition after the first sitting. As soon as you give me a dollar for the first orange or apple the condition is satisfied and the rest is irrelevant. Before you all put me down I am a software engineer and I do know what I am talking about. The second fruit is irrelevant. I understand the way the card is intended but I am just following English language. If you want the card to have the ability to to choose to discard a card when entering play and/or when entering play then it should say so. The wording at present does not say that. At the very least it should be an and/or condition. Ktom - if your employer wants to log your hours he would want to know when you had both clocked in AND out. I am not trying to be controversial but the text is quite plain and correct. You can discard a card when you enter play OR when you leave play not both. If the intention is otherwise the card text should be amended. I know that I am a new poster but I do know the English language and programming logic.....despite being obviously drunk on apples.

When you enter or leave the room, close the door behind you.

Thank you ktom for sage advice. Falkenstein (Dave) is the person that I play against and in conversation he agrees with me over the cards text. I understand why he asked the question as I would want my card to be more effective and publicly he would probably say that he is unsure of the cards text. I apologise if I put my opinion quite forcefully but that is my way and I am quite prepared to accept that I am wrong if proved to be so. I also understand that both Lars and yourself are experienced posters and players and that both Dave and myself could learn a lot from your advice but being allowed to query is a healthy part of our hobby. I am sorry that you feel moved to be so curt but you have to excuse me as I had been drinking Thatchers Gold at 4.8% for 4 hours which, by the way, is only apples so what harm can it do....

Just to be sure that there was no misunderstanding -- when ktom said "When you enter or leave the room, close the door behind you," he wasn't suggesting that you should leave the room. He was just giving another example of a common use of the word "or" to define a set of criteria in which the word "or" is inclusive rather than exclusive.

You may have interpreted his intent correctly, I don't know. (MIght depend on the cider?) I just wanted to make extra-sure that you hadn't misread his post as a personal statement.

And no, I don't know him personally and can't claim to read his mind. But since he appears to have logged off for the night, I hope he doesn't mind me jumping in to avoid hurt feelings if none are intended.

fisherdownunder said:

I apologize that you took it that way. In retrospect, it was a poor example without context. It was not intended as "advice" or any comment on you personally. It was intended as another example of common usage wherein the word "or" does not create a mutually exclusive choice. Perhaps I should heed my own advice about considering the context of an "or" statement.

Your points about clear language are well taken and well founded. You are correct that "plain English" does not always explain the usage of certain cards. (Wait until you get to an "after an effect is triggered..." situation involving passive effects.) The discussion here seems to have come down to the fact that "or" has several common usages, not all of which may be strictly correct from a grammatical point of view. And, of course, if we are looking at common usages, it is worth noting that different usages and idioms become acceptable depending on region.

My earlier comments about this being a play restriction as a context probably needs some clarification. Because play restrictions define when something can take place, the use of this "or" statement essentially boils down to "if A or B is true, then you may do C." So only one of the two conditions (A or B) needs to be true in order for a player to do C. That much seems to be agreed upon.

But each action or event in this game is considered separately - only taking into account the current situation and card status. Prior events or actions are not considered unless you are specifically instructed to do so. When the card leaves play, it has no "memory" that it was triggered at the time it entered play. All it knows if "if A or B, then you may do C." So, since one or the other is true, it is legal.

i also never said i'm only giving you one dollar, for eating an apple or an orange. You assumed you were only getting one dollar, just as you appear to be assuming desperate looters only gives you one bite at the card discard. Would I be saying anything different if i said every time you eat an apple or an orange i'll give you a dollar. if it does then read Desperate looters that way .

so grammar or not, a lot of the problem is the assumptions we all bring to the game.

Welcome to the Game of Thronesa and one of many cards/text/english/ discussions don't get me started on targets!!!!! ;P