SoR Card 120 - Collateral Damage
Resolve one or more of your dice showing either melee damage or ranged damage. Then force an opponent to lose 1 resource.

I am a bit confused as I was just told that this card is one or the other and not both?

I read this as resolve your damage die essentially.

Am I wrong?

It's both. Whoever told you otherwise is wrong.

Is it both? Huh. That actually makes it more powerful than I thought. I always thought the word "either" and its placement in the sentence meant you had to choose one type of damage or the other. Cool!

13 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

Or means or; the 'either' is completely superfluous here. The card actually shows the damage symbols to distinguish them from all other types, but if you just wanted to resolve all of your dice you could already do that with All In. There's about a half dozen other ways they could have templated the card if they just wanted you to select one of the two damage types, the easiest of which would have been the inclusion of a comma.

1 minute ago, JeffIncredible said:

what? The both refers to resolving damage AND your opponent losing a resource. You only resolve one type of damage but it can be either one.

Uh, no. 'Then' refers to your opponent using losing a resource, but they're separate clauses.

yeah sorry I missed the one or more part.

3 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

It's both. Whoever told you otherwise is wrong.

Completely disagree. In logic either/or is used as an exclusive, i.e., A or B, but not both. Or is inclusive, A or B, or both.

See Secret Facility as an example of the latter.

I'd agree that it only allows you to resolve one type of damage, because otherwise the 'either' is completely irrelevant - if it let you resolve both types of damage, you can remove 'either' from the sentence and it doesn't change the intent.

33 minutes ago, wakefieldbw said:

Completely disagree. In logic either/or is used as an exclusive, i.e., A or B, but not both. Or is inclusive, A or B, or both.

See Secret Facility as an example of the latter.

Dice are always resolved individually, so you can resolve one die of either type before resolving another die of either type. Are we assuming that FFG is either smart or competent enough to engage in uniform card templating now? Because there's hardly much precedence for that .

27 minutes ago, Abyss said:

I'd agree that it only allows you to resolve one type of damage, because otherwise the 'either' is completely irrelevant - if it let you resolve both types of damage, you can remove 'either' from the sentence and it doesn't change the intent.

It is completely irrelevant, but so is the word 'immediately,' and there's been no small amount of discussion around FFG's superfluous use of that word. Best not to read too much into what basically amounts to English convention.

If we want to talk about intent, then I suspect FFG might have had the brainpower to impose a selection mechanism: 'choose,' 'pick,' or 'select' would have worked just fine, but the natural ambiguity suggests that all dice are equally valid choices. Really, how hard would it have been to split the text into separate clauses with a comma?

"Resolve one or more of your dice showing melee damage, or one or more of your dice showing ranged damage."

I really don't see the ambiguity, and your argument is wholly unconvincing.

Explain why FFG would use either/or on Collateral damage, and only or on Secret Facility? The simplest explanation is that they meant for 2 different effects: either R or M dice but not both in the former, and either R or M dice or both in the latter.

I think FFG deserves the benefit of doubt in a case like this, where they made a distinction, and a simple understanding of logic (not the English language) supports a difference.

4 minutes ago, wakefieldbw said:

I really don't see the ambiguity, and your argument is wholly unconvincing.

Explain why FFG would use either/or on Collateral damage, and only or on Secret Facility? The simplest explanation is that they meant for 2 different effects: either R or M dice but not both in the former, and either R or M dice or both in the latter.

I think FFG deserves the benefit of doubt in a case like this, where they made a distinction, and a simple understanding of logic (not the English language) supports a difference.

I don't really ascribe any sense of logic to FFG when it comes to card templating; it's very likely that completely different people are writing these individual cards, and whoever is approving them before they go to print doesn't have an impression of what universal card templating or future proofing looks like. The only certain conclusion I can make is that there's no good reason to use one as precedence for another, because that's not how FFG operates. Take the above card for example: can you tell me why Collateral Damage wasn't worded similarly? Because there's little functional difference apart from the obvious use of damage symbols.

K

So either is "superfluous"?

For the most part, yes it is. I don't mean to question your reading ability, but surely just about anyone could read that same card without the word 'either' and it would mean exactly the same thing. I mean, the text might not flow as well, but we're not exactly having a conversation about style at present. Also: why are we still trying to draw comparisons between cards? They have nothing to do with each other.

The word "either" really confused me too, because it can be interpreted multiple ways.

1.) "either" could be interpreted to mean "choose one or the other, but not both" as in "we can buy either cookies or soda"

2.) "either" can also mean "can be both, you choose, but it can't be anything else" as in "we have plenty of snacks, either cookies or soda"

it's actually a pretty vague word when you stop to think about it. I tend to lean towards that second interpretation, but it seems kinda clunky. Hope I explained that well...

Let's try to deduce intent. Collateral Damage is a 0 cost card. It let's you resolve damage, which is free, AND remove an opponents resource, which typically costs either an action, or a resource or both.

Seems like adding the ability to resolve mixed damage, ALA All-in for example, which costs 1 resource, would be excessive based on 0 cost.

1 minute ago, wakefieldbw said:

Let's try to deduce intent.

Let's not; that's just as wasteful and ultimately fruitless as comparing sentence frames or word choice. You can remain unconvinced if you like, I really don't have anything invested in your affirmation.

4 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

For the most part, yes it is. I don't mean to question your reading ability, but surely just about anyone could read that same card without the word 'either' and it would mean exactly the same thing. I mean, the text might not flow as well, but we're not exactly having a conversation about style at present. Also: why are we still trying to draw comparisons between cards? They have nothing to do with each other.

I read just fine. I come from a technical background where words have meaning. You are choosing what you feel is meaningful. Have fun with that.

1 minute ago, wakefieldbw said:

I read just fine. I come from a technical background where words have meaning. You are choosing what you feel is meaningful. Have fun with that.

I hardly see how that's different from cherry picking the cards that you find meaningful to this conversation.

The card I picked was actually relevant. It included the either/or syntax as an example where both A and B is clearly not allowed. Your example was completely irrelevant and actually undermines your position.

If Collateral damage is supposed to allow resolving mixed damage, it would say "resolve any number of your dice showing damage". Just like All-in.

It seems you have an axe to grind with FFG, and as such, are unable to accept the most logical reading of the rules.

To answer the OP you were told correct it is EITHER one or the other, not both at the same time. Just read the full text of what ever card you are playing. In this case it says resolve 1 or more dice... of EITHER 1 type of damage or the OTHER type of damage, you do not get to resolve mixed damage as it does specify to pick one or the other.("either, Or") That's the definition of either. Otherwise it would read more like Secret facility and just say "Resolve any number of your dice showing damage then force the opponent to lose 1 resource." And the parenthesis would contain the (range Symbol or Melee symbols) as reminders rather then as part of the cards text. As is the Range symbol and Melee Symbol are both separated by card text further indicating that they are indeed separate. That is why the word Either and Or are BOTH present, otherwise you would only need 1.

48 minutes ago, wakefieldbw said:

The card I picked was actually relevant. It included the either/or syntax as an example where both A and B is clearly not allowed. Your example was completely irrelevant and actually undermines your position.

If Collateral damage is supposed to allow resolving mixed damage, it would say "resolve any number of your dice showing damage". Just like All-in.

It seems you have an axe to grind with FFG, and as such, are unable to accept the most logical reading of the rules.

No other cards are relevant, because there is no uniform card templating. Period. Anybody with enough exposure to FFG's design philosophy will tell you the same, so what you see as some kind of veiled animosity is just objective fact at this point.

2 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

No other cards are relevant, because there is no uniform card templating. Period. Anybody with enough exposure to FFG's design philosophy will tell you the same, so what you see as some kind veiled animosity is just objective fact at this point.

Again, no benefit of the doubt shown to the designers on your part. Maybe you should sit out FFG rules questions, given this "fact".

I don't owe them any benefit of the doubt, do I? Their history on the matter certainly hasn't earned them much, but perhaps you're just a little too wet behind the ears to know better. Maybe you should wait another thousand posts or two before offering advice to your more experienced peers. Ciao, cupcake.

Right.