Buhallin said:

Not trying to be confrontational here, but are you deliberately being obtuse? "The first damage" and "with 1 damage", on the two cards respectively, are completely different arguments. To say that they are the same in essence but being handled differently by the developers, hence muddying the waters for the players, is extremely misleading.

When faced with similar cards in the future, I would use the two different statements that the cards allude to... is it a sequential issue ("first damage"), or nonsequential ("with 1 damage")... and make a ruling accordingly.

EDIT: For the record, I got emotionally invested in an argument about the Stubborn Refusal card, and Dormouse was correct on that ruling. This is not to point out that Dormouse is infallible (although I find him correct nearly all of the time, so I trust his opinion), but to indicate that feelings get riled and it is hard to change one's mind when upset.

Ok, understand you reasoning, even if I don't agree with something. But as you said, my opinion is useless.

Anyway, the "bad wording" is not OBJECTIVE as you're trying to point out. If EVERY player had the same problem, well...You'd have been right, maybe.

But we have SOME players with a bunch of cards here and it doesn't mean that there's an actual flaw in the design/wording system.

As I said, everyone in my area understood these cards as they've been ruled (before the actual ruling by Nate).

So, the point is: point out whatever you want, but do it in a less "ultimate" manner and, possibly, tryin' to think that maybe what you describe as a design flaw is just a misunderstanding.

Peace.

Hurdoc said:

I've played both of their other LCG's, and have had the opportunity to pick the developers brain on multiple occasions. Most of my interpretations comes from understanding how they write the cards and rules. The formatting was the main problem people seemed to be having with We'z Bigga. With one or two notable exceptions. If you understand how a card is formatted it becomes easy to tell that Enters play with 1 damage is not a condition check but an effect, and stated as an absolute in reference to the effect not the unit entering play. If you ignore the text formatting it becomes able to be interpreted either way.

Because of this We'z Bigga is poorly worded. You should be able to read a card and have a single interpretation from that reading. If an effect must be worded in a fashion that could potentially leave to equally valid interpretations, the card itself should include text that forces a distinction, and not rely on knowing the order of effects versus conditions and requirements.

dormouse said:

I know we're dragging this all around again, but I think you're still misunderstanding my point. I never claimed it was a condition check. I read "Enters play with 1 damage" as a flat statement of effect - that is, "This unit will have one damage token on it when it enters play". The problem is that the card isn't worded as an action to be taken. "Damage cannot be canceled" is not an action, it is a statement, and that seems to be fine as a statement. But for some reason this statement is read as an action. I've never considered the 1 damage to be anything but an effect, and never suggested otherwise. It's just an absolute statement of the end result, rather than the action you take to get there.

But I guess I'z just dense... I anxiously await DB leaping to defend my honor, since Hurdoc wuz meaniez ta mez!

I'm going to reply to you even though I said to myself I wasn't going to anymore. This is me trying to ignore the repeated calls of my arguments being idiotic Though Nate essentially said I was completely correct in the ruling and the reason for it I don't expect an apology. I'm willing to let it lie if you will simply stop belittling people and/or their arguments.

In order for the card to be an absolute statement regarding the unit, where the occurence of another damage would prevent the second part from triggering, there must be a condition check. That was what I was saying all along and what Nate explained in his ruling about the damage from each card being unaware of each other. The only time a card can take the state of another card into consideration is if it includes a condition check. That is the only thing that tells us some state of the card may affect its validity for effect/targeting/variable cost, etc.

If there is no condition check then the card simply does what it says, regardless of any state the card may be in already, completely blind and unaware of anything else done to the card, which means "comes into play with 1 Damage" can't be an absolute statement in regard to the unit, but rather the effect of how much damage this card is causing the unit to come into play with, which is the other valid and grammatically correct way of reading it

BTW Nate was a degree in English and so does the copy editor whose sole job is to review and check the grammar on cards. More often than not the cards are grammatically correct, it is the person saying that it is wrong that is confusing conversational English with slang and colloquialisms for grammatically correct English. Though sometimes a phrase can be ambiguous actually having two separate but correct interpretations as here. As I said earlier, when that happens look at the formating of the card. Compare it to the other cards. When I first read this card I knew it could be a statement about the effect or the unit. No conditional statement prior to the effect told me which of the two was the correct way to read and then play the card.

<shrug> Can't say anything but that I still disagree. If three people say "There is one person arriving on the bus" that doesn't mean three people get off. If that was the intent (which is obviously was from the ruling) it's INCREDIBLY bad wording which contradicts any natural reading regardless of degrees or copy editing.

But it doesn't really matter anyway. It seems we've already arrived at a point where the best thing anyone can do with this game is guess at what the intent was, and move forward as best we can. The dealt damage/burnt capital problem put the last nail in any expectation I had of these rules staying stable enough to get by on just what is printed. That's exactly the sort of thing I was worried about - developers making off-the-cuff rulings about what they want a card to do without actually looking at the impact to the rules.

But I'm sorry I called your argument idiotic. I still think it avoided the core issue of the card, but it was a poor choice of words.

You are entitled to your feelings, but - if three people say there is one person on the bus, that in no way indicates the total amount of people on a bus, grammatically or logically. We just know there is a minimum of one person on the bus. If I say there is a beer in the fridge, it does not mean nor necessarily imply that there is only a beer in the fridge and nothing else. The only way to determine how many other people are on that bus or if there is anything else in the fridge is too look for more information. In this case the "more information" comes from knowing that a card tells us when we should be looking at a thing or making a choice, or when some part of it does or does not apply. The moment you tried to divorce the text from the rules of the game rather than understanding the text using the rules you were on shaky ground.

I wasn't ignoring any core part of the card, I was telling you that you were ignoring a core part of the game, which is still, if the card does not say look or consider a thing you don't look or consider a thing.

Now the damage thing in regards to SM and burning capitols is a very good point. IT is a ruling that I feel is Nate's attempt to follow what the cards and rules say regarding this particular card, as much as the intent, but does definitely have the possibility of creating larger problems. I'd whole-heartedly suggest you send Nate a query regarding the SM ruling and the burning capitol section.

I suspect the answer is going to be that the rules say damage dealt to the capitol (which if a unit deals damage as soon as it is added to the pool, the damage dealt to a specific thing should reasonably be the very next step, meaning when it is assigned) equal to or in excess of its HP, does not become burning until the Apply damage step because the rules specifically say that is when all damage is removed and a burn token is added to the zone.

dormouse said:

Really? You think that if you told someone "There is one person on the bus" when it was actually full, they'd think you were correct? Or if you told someone "There is one soda in that twelve-pack box" they wouldn't look at you a bit funny?

If I played 3 cards of "Go to the fridge and come back with one beer in your hand", would you come back with 1 or 3 beers

It's just bad wording.

Edit: Have to specify: you only still go once to the fridge.

Buhallin said:

Sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of the sentence, really.

how about both sides (including myself) agree that the wording of We's Bigger is ambiguous at best and that 2 "not wrong" interpretations can be made, one based on the literal wording and one based on the context. Then we can end the circular arguement.

Either way, a final ruling has been made, so further debate will not help players understand the rules of this game.

It is logic. The statement is grammatically correct. There is one person on the bus. There may also be a dog on the bus, but that has nothing to do with the correct statement, there is one person on the bus. There may be three people on the bus in total, but that still does not make the statement, there is one person on the bus incorrect. A statement can be logically true, grammatically correct, and still be misunderstood. That is what we have here. When we apply the rules of the game to the card text only one meaning meets the rules requirement concerning card interaction, so we know which way to interpret the card.

As I said, repeatedly, both understandings of the card are grammatically correct so we fall back on the rules to tell us which way to handle it. To supplement that we now have a direct ruling. That you don't like the ruling is evident, but that doesn't make it nonsensical or not supported by the rules. Everyone who came out with the same interpretation of the rules as Nate confirmed managed to do it by applying the rules to the card. Eventually you have to either accept there was something you were/are missing, or just let it go and get on with the enjoyment of the game... unless you plan on quitting, in which case I don't understand that at all and hope you would reconsider.

If you don't plan on quitting then I'd suggest embracing the rules clarification learning to understand the logic or just let it go entirely. It's just a game.

Let's try a rather extreme example then.

You're standing outside a burning building. The fire department comes rushing up, and you say "There's one person trapped in the house!" Would you care to explain to the other three who die (that you knew were in there) how logically correct you were?

If there is three of something, then saying there is one is simply incorrect by any reasonable evaluation. I suggest you try this in the real world - tell a job interviewer you failed one class instead of three, or tell a judge you have one speeding ticket when you have four, or your landlord that you have missed one month worth of rent when it's two. You simply cannot communicate with another human being this way.

But you're right - it doesn't really matter. I've learned a little about a ruling, a lot about how the developers approach making their rulings, and even more about the lengths you'll go to support them. That's worth the price of admission.

And we've all learned a lot about you. I dare say more than you learned about any of the stuff you mentioned. *shrug* It's your life. Live it how you will. Me, I remember this is a game and don't get emotionally invested in being "right" just in how much fun I can have playing the game. YMMV.