Page 14 states that "If a player has no cards in their hand AND deck at the end of the round..." (after upkeep), they lose the game. Yet I've watched several online tutorials state that the game is over if there are no cards in their hand OR deck at the end of the round. Which is It?

Also, interestingly, page 20 states the OR operator when describing the same losing condition but for multi-player rules. Was that intentional?

And

It's hand and deck. The game has several mechanics that can cause opponents to lose cards from their hand and/or deck, so "decking" an opponent is viable, but not something to base a whole deck strategy behind.

In fact, so far from my admittedly limited playing of the game, decking is only an issue with the smaller 20 card starter decks. Regular 30 card decks seem to avoid it.

Thanks folks. This was my take too. Just didn't know if I was missing something. I have yet to play with a 30 card deck. I was only able to get the starters. The boosters were sold out. So yes, decking has played a major role so far.

Do you think the multi-player rules are a mistake or intentional?

Do you think the multi-player rules are a mistake or intentional?

Lacking evidence to the contrary, assume intentional.

I can see the logic, though. A multiplayer game has many more cards involved, so the decking limits would be easy to circumvent. Making it "or" stops a player with an empty deck from lingering and forces players with empty hands to draw something in order to keep the game moving.

Page 14 states that "If a player has no cards in their hand AND deck at the end of the round..." (after upkeep), they lose the game. Yet I've watched several online tutorials state that the game is over if there are no cards in their hand OR deck at the end of the round. Which is It?

Also, interestingly, page 20 states the OR operator when describing the same losing condition but for multi-player rules. Was that intentional?

after upkeep so at the end of a round so it could be a tie.

Edit: Let this one slip by it was late when I wrote this and should have refrained from commenting.

Page 14 states that "If a player has no cards in their hand AND deck at the end of the round..." (after upkeep), they lose the game. Yet I've watched several online tutorials state that the game is over if there are no cards in their hand OR deck at the end of the round. Which is It?

Also, interestingly, page 20 states the OR operator when describing the same losing condition but for multi-player rules. Was that intentional?

after upkeep so at the end of a round so it could be a tie.

This has nothing to do with the question being asked.

Yet I've watched several online tutorials state that the game is over if there are no cards in their hand OR deck at the end of the round.

As an aside, unless the tutorial was from FFG, why would you take their word over the rulebook?

Yet I've watched several online tutorials state that the game is over if there are no cards in their hand OR deck at the end of the round.

As an aside, unless the tutorial was from FFG, why would you take their word over the rulebook?

I didn't take anyone's word. I was actually erring towards the rulebook. But there have been mistakes in rulebooks before. Especially at launch. Add to that the different "Or" operator for multiplayer and I wasn't sure if I missed and errata. It was definitely worth clarification, for me at least. BTW, the official FFG video doesn't specify this win condition. That's the first place I looked.

Do you think the multi-player rules are a mistake or intentional?

Lacking evidence to the contrary, assume intentional.

I can see the logic, though. A multiplayer game has many more cards involved, so the decking limits would be easy to circumvent. Making it "or" stops a player with an empty deck from lingering and forces players with empty hands to draw something in order to keep the game moving.

This makes sense. Though the same cards and dice available in opponents' decks designed to cull cards would still be there in multiplayer. But yes,considering the extra players, it definitely would keep the game moving!

This is my first post, so please be gentle!

If you treat OR as an operator, like in coding, then you lose if either condition is satisfied. If you treat OR as a grammatical conjunction then the interpretation can be different.

Consider the following:

'You are broke if you have no money in your wallet or bank account.'

If you have money in your wallet, but none in your bank account (or vice versa), are you broke? My interpretation is no, you are not. The OR links wallet and bank account, rather than separate them.

To me, 'no cards in your hand or deck' means you have no cards on your hand and no cards in your deck. The multiplayer rules may have been written by a different author, but I don't see a difference grammatically. OR can be used both inclusively or exclusively in English. I have no idea whether it is good form in rules writing to use OR rather than AND when you intend inclusivity.