Just now, KrisWall said:

So, to clarify... rules text ambiguity is fine?

Nope! Which is why I'm not blasting OP or non-native English speakers. Always glad to have clarification, it's just a mystery to me as to why someone would choose to believe the alternate interpretation.

1 minute ago, Stone37 said:

You should re-read what you just posted... the entire 2nd definition... not just the part you like.

Explain what you mean. I could underline the entire second definition and it still means 'different' and not 'additional'.

" used to refer to a different person or thing from one already mentioned or known about. "

In our Asajj example, the initial card discarded would be the "already mentioned or know about" card. The 'another card' would be the different one.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Nope! Which is why I'm not blasting OP or non-native English speakers. Always glad to have clarification, it's just a mystery to me as to why someone would choose to believe the alternate interpretation.

Life is a mystery. I also thought it was straightforward enough... but I respect that others might not feel the same way.

I would imagine that if you asked a thousand players about this, that the majority would get the correct answer. Some would think it referred to a different card. Especially with other languages involved.

2 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

But it is... the language portion becomes completely moot once you start thinking about how those other interpretations play out.

EXACTLY!

Let's write it out... shale we!

Using definition 1:

After an opponent discards a card from their hand to reroll dice, you may force them to choose and discard an additional thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about (one more; a further) from their hand.

Using definition 2:

After an opponent discards a card from their hand to reroll dice, you may force them to choose and discard a different thing from one already mentioned or known about from their hand.

Using definition 3:

After an opponent discards a card from their hand to reroll dice, you may force them to choose and discard a card being one more in addition to from their hand.

19 minutes ago, Stone37 said:

NO! Another is the proper and correct word. "Another" ALWAYS means being one more in addition to. The player has ALREADY discarded a card. Ventress forces the player to discard another card (one in addition to). Not a "different card", not "an additional" card... another card (one in addition to). "Different" and "Additional" also have their own unique meanings. They are words that are close to, but not the same as "another".

WRONG! If the question has to be asked, by anyone, it is ambiguous and was worded poorly. Clear communication, especially in a game sold world wide, is very important. Another could mean additional or a different one. It has multiple means and most certainly does not ALWAYS means additional. You know what word does always means additional? Additional.

The English language is dead. I mourn its passing.

1 minute ago, Stone37 said:

EXACTLY!

Let's write it out... shale we!

Using definition 1:

After an opponent discards a card from their hand to reroll dice, you may force them to choose and discard an additional thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about (one more; a further) from their hand.

Using definition 2:

After an opponent discards a card from their hand to reroll dice, you may force them to choose and discard a different thing from one already mentioned or known about from their hand.

Using definition 3:

After an opponent discards a card from their hand to reroll dice, you may force them to choose and discard a card being one more in addition to from their hand.

You know, instead of being snarky, you could have just said something along the lines of...

"Hey guys, due to the timing and the word 'after' being used, 'another' card would be both different from the already discarded card AND in addition to the already discarded card, thus satisfying both definitions."

But hey... this is the internet. You do you.

28 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Maybe someone can look up the definition of 'trolling' while we're at it.

Clearly, used correctly.

1 hour ago, Mep said:

WRONG! If the question has to be asked, by anyone , it is ambiguous and was worded poorly.

Uh... no.

As it pertains to this thread? As someone who has been asked by COUNTLESS blackjack dealers if I'd like "another card" I am fairly confident that there is little-to-no ambiguity about what is meant by "another" in that context, nor should there be in this one.

2 minutes ago, KalEl814 said:

Uh... no.

As it pertains to this thread? As someone who has been asked by COUNTLESS blackjack dealers if I'd like "another card" I am fairly confident that there is little-to-no ambiguity about what is meant by "another" in that context, nor should there be in this one.

There is ambiguity. As has been pointed out, though, the ambiguity makes no difference since discarding another card happens only after the first card has been discarded. Whether additional or different, two cards get discarded.

8 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

There is ambiguity.

There shouldn't be. If I'd get laughed out of a casino for suggesting that the dealer offered me the opportunity to get a different card when they asked me if I wanted another card, and if swarms of bachelor and bachelorette parties can understand this while they're hammered, we should all be able to understand what is meant as well.

Someone earned their J.D. in rules lawyering before posing this question. This isn't quite as bad as someone rolling their dice on the table slowly, and deliberately, with the intent of influencing the outcome... and then pointing out that neither the RRG nor the tournament rules stipulate that rolling the dice should be done with the intent of randomizing the outcome. But it's almost at that level.

2 hours ago, KrisWall said:

This isn't a discussion of whether or not a rules interpretation is good or bad. It's a discussion of ambiguity in rules text. The OP found an ambiguity, asked FFG for a clarification and then posted the answer on a forum. For inexplicable reasons, he was then attacked and called 'dense' with several other comments implying he was somehow a lesser person for needing to ask a question.

Well done, internet. You never fail to disappoint.

To the OP... I appreciate you posting your question and answer. I judge occasional events and it's good to see some of the obscure situations that could come up and don't have a grammatical black and white answer.

Thanks Kris. Anyhoo, the OP is not from Sweden (someone said that). And OP is not a male either, I'm pretty sure I'm a female

To all the others: I have not asked the question to FFG because I had a doubt on how to play a card, but because one fellow forumite mailed me asking how to read the card because it was ambiguous and caused disputes. I simply asked Jeremy and got an answer, thinking that since it caused some disputes, possibly those fighting over this card (and other cards using "another") would see this as beneficial.

If you don't need said answer, all the better. If at least ONE person was in need of said answer, then they have an official answer. I don't understand the need to debate the reasons why the question was asked, nor speculate on the magnitude of the discovery.

Remember there are no dumb questions, just rude or inadequate answers done by dumb people.

4 hours ago, KalEl814 said:

Uh... no.

As it pertains to this thread? As someone who has been asked by COUNTLESS blackjack dealers if I'd like "another card" I am fairly confident that there is little-to-no ambiguity about what is meant by "another" in that context, nor should there be in this one.

Why don't you ask those blackjack dealers about times they were not clearly understood. You'll probably get all kinds of crazy stories. Also, blackjack is an old established game with known rules, this card, not at all.

BTW, it's not about you or about what you understand or what you think other people should know. You'll find yourself in the wrong every time you make something that isn't about you all about you. It is about using a word that actually has multiple meanings instead of being more precise and using a word with a singular meaning. As I stated before, it never occurred to me that one would read the card with another, unintended meaning, until pointed out. Of course it isn't about me, so my interpretation isn't what is relevant rather than the wording isn't as precise as it could be and it caused confusion. Just because it is clear to you doesn't mean it is clear to everyone playing the game and they have the right to ask for clarity, as any good blackjack dealer will tell you.

I'll be honest, we must have some terrible gamers here if this many people can't think two steps ahead.

18 minutes ago, Mep said:

Why don't you ask those blackjack dealers about times they were not clearly understood. You'll probably get all kinds of crazy stories. Also, blackjack is an old established game with known rules, this card, not at all.

BTW, it's not about you or about what you understand or what you think other people should know. You'll find yourself in the wrong every time you make something that isn't about you all about you. It is about using a word that actually has multiple meanings instead of being more precise and using a word with a singular meaning. As I stated before, it never occurred to me that one would read the card with another, unintended meaning, until pointed out. Of course it isn't about me, so my interpretation isn't what is relevant rather than the wording isn't as precise as it could be and it caused confusion. Just because it is clear to you doesn't mean it is clear to everyone playing the game and they have the right to ask for clarity, as any good blackjack dealer will tell you.

It's not about my personal perception, or yours, or anyone, it's about context.

The RRG explanation for Ambush says, "After playing (and resolving) a card with Ambush, a player may immediately take another action." Would anyone assume that "another" meant that the next action had to be a different one? "Sorry, you just played an event with Ambush. Your next action has to be DIFFERENT. You cannot play AN ADDITIONAL event right now, because 'another' sometimes means 'different.'"

There is nothing on Ventress that would explain what to do if my hand consisted only of two identical cards. There's nothing on Ventress that says what I should do with the first card I discarded if my opponent makes me discard a "different" one... stay in my discard pile, return to my hand, go to my set aside area, etc.

There's nothing in the tournament regs that states what "cut" means within the context of the game setup. Yeah it PROBABLY means that I can take some cards off the top of my opponent's deck to make two piles, then put the pile that was on bottom of their deck onto the top. But I bring scissors to every tournament in case I feel like cutting his deck with those instead. After all, you cannot dispute that cut has more than one meaning AND that "cut" means to make an incision MUCH MORE OFTEN than it does to rearrange a deck of cards.

Again... context.

50 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I'll be honest, we must have some terrible gamers here if this many people can't think two steps ahead.

Yes we do have some terrible gamers here. There are many non-gamers that come to this game that do in fact lack the context to understand those cards. Instead of shaming and calling them stupid, just say, "you know what, it can be thought of that way, but no, it means something different actually, so please put away those scissors because that isn't how you cut a deck."

5 minutes ago, KalEl814 said:

It's not about my personal perception, or yours, or anyone, it's about context.

The RRG explanation for Ambush says, "After playing (and resolving) a card with Ambush, a player may immediately take another action." Would anyone assume that "another" meant that the next action had to be a different one? "Sorry, you just played an event with Ambush. Your next action has to be DIFFERENT. You cannot play AN ADDITIONAL event right now, because 'another' sometimes means 'different.'"

There is nothing on Ventress that would explain what to do if my hand consisted only of two identical cards. There's nothing on Ventress that says what I should do with the first card I discarded if my opponent makes me discard a "different" one... stay in my discard pile, return to my hand, go to my set aside area, etc.

There's nothing in the tournament regs that states what "cut" means within the context of the game setup. Yeah it PROBABLY means that I can take some cards off the top of my opponent's deck to make two piles, then put the pile that was on bottom of their deck onto the top. But I bring scissors to every tournament in case I feel like cutting his deck with those instead. After all, you cannot dispute that cut has more than one meaning AND that "cut" means to make an incision MUCH MORE OFTEN than it does to rearrange a deck of cards.

Again... context.

I think the only cutting tool we need for this particular scenario is Occam's Razor.

7 minutes ago, Mep said:

Yes we do have some terrible gamers here. There are many non-gamers that come to this game that do in fact lack the context to understand those cards. Instead of shaming and calling them stupid, just say, "you know what, it can be thought of that way, but no, it means something different actually, so please put away those scissors because that isn't how you cut a deck."

Yeah, that's not what happened at all. There's a not-so-fine line between "think about how it plays instead of how it reads" and "you're stupid." And fostering critical thinking skills isn't the same as shaming, for that matter.

4 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Yeah, that's not what happened at all. There's a not-so-fine line between "think about how it plays instead of how it reads" and "you're stupid." And fostering critical thinking skills isn't the same as shaming, for that matter.

So, just to confirm here: You're basing your argument on the fact that it should be obvious.....Are you neglecting the whole 'Sometimes, FFG just does really weird/stupid stuff' thing?

Because come on, lets be honest here. Given how Destiny has gone, it is not outside the realms of possibility that FFG totaly intended Ventress to force them to discard a different card and thought that was 100% okay, . I don't see how 'It's not good enough for it's cost!' or 'It doesn't make sense with the rules!' is a defense in this case.

(Granted, I agree that it's mostly a silly interpretation, but it feels like you're expecting people to have a lot of faith in FFG here).

Yes "another" can be confusing but, if we follow the actual and updated rules, the original card is already discarted, the text doesnt say the replacement word: "Instead" (Like Obi one clarification with healing blue cards) so even though you would like an "exchange" instead of an additionnal card, you could not since keyword is not present.

5 hours ago, Abyss said:

So, just to confirm here: You're basing your argument on the fact that it should be obvious.....Are you neglecting the whole 'Sometimes, FFG just does really weird/stupid stuff' thing?

Because come on, lets be honest here. Given how Destiny has gone, it is not outside the realms of possibility that FFG totaly intended Ventress to force them to discard a different card and thought that was 100% okay, . I don't see how 'It's not good enough for it's cost!' or 'It doesn't make sense with the rules!' is a defense in this case.

(Granted, I agree that it's mostly a silly interpretation, but it feels like you're expecting people to have a lot of faith in FFG here).

Faith doesn't really enter into the equation. Interpretation 1 is straightforward; interpretation 2 leaves about half a dozen more unanswered questions. The problem is people aren't getting that far in their chain of reasoning because they're hung up on word choice.

3 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Faith doesn't really enter into the equation. Interpretation 1 is straightforward; interpretation 2 leaves about half a dozen more unanswered questions. The problem is people aren't getting that far in their chain of reasoning because they're hung up on word choice.

Option #1 seeming more straightforward doesn't always make it right. Option #1 matching with the author's intent makes it right. I'm seen enough gamers be surprised by an FAQ answer to know that the most straightforward interpretation isn't always what the author intended.

It's like the additional action thing. The page 13 additional action rule was actually very clear that one action had to be resolved before another action was taken. Also what went into the queue was also clear. However the rules as written left some room open for interpretation like actions going into the queue even if there was nothing in the written rules that allowed for that. It really comes down to communication and the language used has to be clear and can only be interpreted a single way. When there is that small window open, such as using the word "another" rather than "additional" it creates this problem. Saying people should just some how innately know better doesn't cut it. FFG needs to use better language. I suppose some people feel that FFG did a good job when they understand something correctly but do a bad job when they don't understand something correctly. Really, it isn't about you.

I do want to say that FFG typically does a pretty good job of writing clear and concise rules. I come from a Games Workshop background where the rules as written sometimes just don't work, are never FAQ'd and the community looks to 3rd party tournament organizers as an 'official' source of rules decisions.

31 minutes ago, Mep said:

It's like the additional action thing. The page 13 additional action rule was actually very clear that one action had to be resolved before another action was taken. Also what went into the queue was also clear. However the rules as written left some room open for interpretation like actions going into the queue even if there was nothing in the written rules that allowed for that. It really comes down to communication and the language used has to be clear and can only be interpreted a single way. When there is that small window open, such as using the word "another" rather than "additional" it creates this problem. Saying people should just some how innately know better doesn't cut it. FFG needs to use better language. I suppose some people feel that FFG did a good job when they understand something correctly but do a bad job when they don't understand something correctly. Really, it isn't about you.

No, it's still a bad job either way. When can we stop pretending like different interpretations aren't separated by degrees of plausibility?