Hello

Afther begining of your turn, each opponent must assign 1 damage to any unit in his batelfield.

Any unit means all units or 1 indirect damage to unit on BZ

Best regards

Mich

Malekith said:

1 damage.

Dam said:

I believe you. Otherwise that card would be ridiculously strong for its cost, but is there an official answer for that. The german version says to each unit in his battelfield.

Seems the German translations have quite a few issues with them. I recall the discussion on Greater Healing (heal damage on all your Units) and Tears of Isha (heal all damage on one Unit), when the German Greater Healing is worded "all damage on one Unit".

There is also an issue with the warrior priest. But otherwise the german translation (before Assault on Uluthuan) was pretty solid. But honestly, couldn't FFg just wrote "any one" or one unit of his choice in the battlefield ? Or is the word any only confusing for non-native speakers ?

I think that english version is not confusing, but the German translation is.

I don't disagree, but I have especially problems with the word any. sometimes it means each (for example Runewars Fortify order) sometimes any one like here

They didn't have any problems understanding Scouts camp, and I had it with the trnslation and even the eoriginal english one, due to shade of meaning issues.

Indeed, the ambiguity is there in English, too. Any can mean "all" or "one" (it can be a universal quantifier or an existential qualifier). It's perhaps easier to catch if any is at the beginning of the sentence: "Any unit in the battlefield takes one damage" or whatever. There should probably be an official answer, so... you know where to send it.

Like many things in English it is contextual. "Any unit in the battlefield takes one damage" would mean each unit in the battlefield takes one damage, but "each opponent must assign 1 damage to any unit in their battlefield" means that each opponent has a single point of damage they must assign to a unit in their battlefield.

The problem is focusing on the word any which is defining the target of the action in English rather than on the action being taken. If there is a single point of damage that is being assigned, it could never be more than one unit it is being assigned to, therefor how the word "any" is being applied is obvious. If you work at it backwards, looking at what is being affected "any unit in the battlefield" and then check what is affecting them "1 damage," it is extremely confusing.

A non-native speaker not only has to translate the words in the sentence, but deal with the grammar rules of the English language, which are not particularly conducive to an easy translation.

Unfortunately, I don't think context resolves this one. "I will give one dollar to any person who doesn't have one" employs the same structure as Shadow Warrior, but I don't think you can argue that it clearly means I have only one dollar to distribute. I could have one dollar for each person who fits the criterion, or one dollar for a single person who fits the criterion.

I should think that whenever the term "any unit" is used, it means one unit. In contrast, "every unit" would mean all units. Assigning one damage to "any unit in the battlefield" would mean one damage to one single unit in the battlefield.

RM

cyberfunk said:

But it isn't quite the same grammatically, the sentence structure is similar but lacking words like each changes the connotation and makes it grammatically ambiguous, or I should say more grammatically ambiguous. The language is correct, though by skipping on common usage it makes it a little more difficult to understand. This gets to be a pain when the correct use of our language is ambiguous because so many of us (and I include myself in this) have grown lazy with the rules of grammar. We so frequently say and write things incorrectly to the point where our ear and eye can no longer parse well structured sentences properly.

And Deashira is correct, the proper way to indicate that each unit in an opponents battlefield must take 1damage (other than this sence) would be "every," not "any."

Every

1. being one of a group or series taken collectively; each

Any

1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification

I agree that the person writing the gametext could have used "every" in the (rather unlikely) event that he intended Shadow Warrior to affect all units in the battlefield, and thus avoided ambiguity. "Any one unit" in place of "any unit," assuming that is the intention, would also avoid ambiguity. It's funny, etymologically, any is related to one . But, it came to mean "one that is representative," and, by extension, "every." Many dictionaries use every to define one of the senses of any . American Heritage puts it succinctly:

any: One, some, every, or all without specification

Did I mention English sucks?

FFG should be more careful with its wording. Often, I don't think they really try to see if their wordings can be understood in more than one fashion. That card would be very clear if they'd have used : "to every" or "to one".

Send it in a suggestion to James.

What ? Checking if your wording can be understood in more than one way ? It should be mandatory anyway in any cards games.

Supa, card text can be misunderstood in one fashion or another in any game. You give me ten cards from any game that come from the same release and I can point out at least three of them that could be interpreted by someone to mean something else. The newer the game the more this happens because people bring the wording and expectations from their previous games to the new game.

Yes the wording on this card can be misunderstood, but that does not make it wrong, difficult, or even particularly bad since they followed the grammar rules of the language the card was written in and the misunderstanding comes from people who use the language incorrectly on a daily basis.

Yes they could have been more precise, but so can a large amount of wording from every game. At some point the copy editors and the game development team need to draw a line in the sand, and the player base need to learn to read the cards in that games lexicon. If you want absolute precision I suppose we could all learn a programming language and have the cards text be written out as such...

but yes, if the line in the sand they have drawn is not to your liking let them know you would prefer there were not multiple ways of reading a card, even if one of them would involve incorrect understanding/grammar if it was in popular usage. I don't think it is too much to ask of them.

I would like programming language and I would like complete flowcharts and class diagramms for all things in the game.

Of course, they'll always be a few guys somewhere who will understand a card in another way. But this is quite a flagrant big potential misunderstanding here. They should have though about it and it's not the first time a poor wording is produced in their LCG games in the last year. Either they need to improve their wording beta-test, either they need to put out more frequent FAQs. You don't want to think about that ? Write a book with a context large enough so your readers can get your true meaning at one point or another.

I think the point Dormouse is trying to make with regards to his direction to speak to James (and it is one he has championed here for some time) is that we all should also be bringing these concerns to the attention of the game designer/developers. While it is all well and good talking about how there are issues with the clarity of wordings on cards between ourselves here it surely would be better to speak directly to the source. If they get a large enough response from their player base, they will know it is something they will have to fix or at the very least, they will be aware of it.

I like this game alot but I have, at times, been a little frustrated by the wordings on cards that are ambiguous (or even cards that seem to have the same effect but are worded differently). Just to be clear I don't think shadow warrior is actually one of these (though foreign translations seems a whole separate issue!). I also agree that part of the problem is that this is a new game and with every new game a new lexicon needs to be created that specifically caters to the interactions that that game presents us with. So I guess this goes back to the first point in that by opening up a dialog between us and the guys who make the game we can point out issues the current lexicon has and (hopefully!) help make changes that strengthen it moving forwards.

All that being said (Rock of Silence indeed ) I'm off to write an email to James and co about this issue myself. Supa (and others) if you feel the same way why not to do so too? Just letting them know that as a player I'd like the game to be clearer has no downside for me that I can see and any impact it does have I can only see as a positive!

It should be noted, I write in about these kinds of things all the time. If you've seen me complain about something, or suggest that someone should write in, I've probably already done so myself.

Getting a sense of group consensus is fine, but I am a problem solver by nature. Just recognizing that I see a problem and then checking with others to see if they see it too or if it is just me, doesn't suit me. If I've identified a problem (or just a point of concern if I am the only one who is misreading/applying the card) I have to bring it up to TPTB. I feel like I've at least attempted to make a constructive change .