57 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

Right, so “after” is no more precise than “before”; you need an assumed “immediately”, which can just as well be applied to “before” as “after”, can it not? That “immediately” is what gives the precision, not any inherent difference between “before” and “after” . I think we agree on that?

No I don't agree, but we're going round in circles yet again, so lets just stop.

EDIT: One last try. If I can't explain myself with this then, can we agree do disagree?

The game moves in sequenced steps that only move forward; it's like programming logic. Each step facilitates the next in direct sequence and can't progress without the previous instruction. It can't go backwards, and the syntax of using 'before' is ordering the sequence to go back on itself which is something it can't do. Now yes the immediacy is implied in a way, but also entirely necessary for the sequence to function. We already treat triggers as immediate, and Frank said they wanted to remove the redundant terminology; as it goes against the sequence of the game.

That is what I meant by 'after' being more accurate than 'before'. Players are less likely to miss the trigger window when every happens in sequence, and the resulting effect comes after the trigger effect. Hopefully it makes sense, and I apologize if in my frustration this wasn't clear previously. I'm not arguing the terms themselves in a general sense, are more or less accurate; but in terms of the game they are quite different. This language change a small, somewhat unimportant change, as we as humans interpret wording within context, but I believe this is the level in which the Dev's are going to tidy up the language of the game, to take up less space, and to more accurately and uniformly apply the game's sequence and rulings.

I might also be completely wrong, but this is why I think the Saw's version of Edrio's text makes more sense.

7 hours ago, BVRCH said:

No I don't agree, but we're going round in circles yet again, so lets just stop.

EDIT: One last try. If I can't explain myself with this then, can we agree do disagree?

The game moves in sequenced steps that only move forward; it's like programming logic. Each step facilitates the next in direct sequence and can't progress without the previous instruction. It can't go backwards, and the syntax of using 'before' is ordering the sequence to go back on itself which is something it can't do. Now yes the immediacy is implied in a way, but also entirely necessary for the sequence to function. We already treat triggers as immediate, and Frank said they wanted to remove the redundant terminology; as it goes against the sequence of the game.

That is what I meant by 'after' being more accurate than 'before'. Players are less likely to miss the trigger window when every happens in sequence, and the resulting effect comes after the trigger effect. Hopefully it makes sense, and I apologize if in my frustration this wasn't clear previously. I'm not arguing the terms themselves in a general sense, are more or less accurate; but in terms of the game they are quite different. This language change a small, somewhat unimportant change, as we as humans interpret wording within context, but I believe this is the level in which the Dev's are going to tidy up the language of the game, to take up less space, and to more accurately and uniformly apply the game's sequence and rulings.

I might also be completely wrong, but this is why I think the Saw's version of Edrio's text makes more sense.

Ah OK, then we were arguing at cross purposes because I was arguing that the wording itself wasn't more specific, it requires FFG to have FAQs and their own custom meaning of things, which of course they can/do, to adjust either word to mean whatever they want just for this game.

However, I disagree on this point: " It can't go backwards, and the syntax of using 'before' is ordering the sequence to go back on itself which is something it can't do ". Yeah, you can't go back in time, but you don't need to - you know the order in which future things will happen in so it's no problem at all to use an immediately before trigger.