@Buhallin I think Relentless Assault still works, even if you do take your deliberately obtuse and RAW stance.

The card:

Let's say I play this card, paying for it with Strength, and target an Ultron Drone (1 HP)

> Deal 5 damage to a minion.

> If you paid for this card using a [physical] resource, this attack gains overkill.

So I deal 5 damage to the Ultron Drone. That sentence is fully resolved.

Then I move onto the second sentence. I paid for the card with a physical resource, so the attack (not the damage, but the attack itself - i.e the card itself) gains overkill.

Overkill - Rules Reference, Page 10, Keywords:

Quote

If an attack with overkill defeats a minion, excess damage from the attack (damage beyond the minion’s remaining hit points) is dealt to the villain.

So we're still resolving the 2nd sentence, which now tells us the attack has gained Overkill. Which itself tells us that if the attack defeats a minion (which it did), the excess damage is dealt to the villain.

Nothing about the card's text being in 2 separate sentences prevents it from working as intended.

On 11/26/2019 at 1:31 AM, Derrault said:

1) Pronouns generally impede reading comprehension and should be avoided for that reason.

This is absurd. If pronouns actually impeded comprehension, they wouldn't be such a staple in languages.

2 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

This is absurd. If pronouns actually impeded comprehension, they wouldn't be such a staple in languages.

Mark and Henry walked up to the door. He opened it.

The cat crept downstairs toward the shadowy figure, and it shrieked.

These are both examples of ambiguous pronouns in writing.

Arguments about language are all well and good, but since, you know, the designer has said it’s 2 instances of damage, case closed, right?

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Mark and Henry walked up to the door. He opened it.

The cat crept downstairs toward the shadowy figure, and it shrieked.

These are both examples of ambiguous pronouns in writing.

And both should be avoid in the context of card games, rules or scientific article or ... any domain where ambiguity has no good purpose. And it does not mean using pronouns imply ambiguity.

1 hour ago, Daft Blazer said:

Arguments about language are all well and good, but since, you know, the designer has said it’s 2 instances of damage, case closed, right?

Indeed!

25 minutes ago, Shindulus said:

And both should be avoid in the context of card games, rules or scientific article or ... any domain where ambiguity has no good purpose. And it does not mean using pronouns imply ambiguity.

Avoiding pronouns does, however, mean avoiding ambiguity.

13 hours ago, Derrault said:

Mark and Henry walked up to the door. He opened it.

The cat crept downstairs toward the shadowy figure, and it shrieked.

These are both examples of ambiguous pronouns in writing.

Mark walked up to the door. Mark opened it. Mark went in and sat down in his chair. Mark turned on his computer. Mark got up and started the coffee maker, then Mark poured Mark a cup of coffee.

Poor use of pronouns can lead to ambiguity, but the idea that they should just never be used or automatically introduce ambiguity is pretty ludicrous.

17 hours ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

So we're still resolving the 2nd sentence, which now tells us the attack has gained Overkill. Which itself tells us that if the attack defeats a minion (which it did), the excess damage is dealt to the villain.

Nothing about the card's text being in 2 separate sentences prevents it from working as intended.

I'm always amazed at the pretzels FFG's fans will bend themselves into to avoid admitting there was ever a bad rule written. Is it possible that excess damage hangs around after it's dealt, waiting to see if there's some use? And you can look back after defeating a minion to apply an "If you defeat a minion" effect which didn't exist when the minion was defeated? Sure, but it's completely counterintuitive and utterly absent from the rules. It's also just plain bad rules design. Effects which aren't active when an event occurs don't get triggered. That's pretty fundamental to every sane rule system out there. Heck, they even demonstrate in a number of other cards how they SHOULD template this to handle the "isolated sentences" structure, but even with all the other correct examples you can't admit they just screwed this one up.

8 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Mark walked up to the door. Mark opened it. Mark went in and sat down in his chair. Mark turned on his computer. Mark got up and started the coffee maker, then Mark poured Mark a cup of coffee.

Poor use of pronouns can lead to ambiguity, but the idea that they should just never be used or automatically introduce ambiguity is pretty ludicrous.

I'm always amazed at the pretzels FFG's fans will bend themselves into to avoid admitting there was ever a bad rule written. Is it possible that excess damage hangs around after it's dealt, waiting to see if there's some use? And you can look back after defeating a minion to apply an "If you defeat a minion" effect which didn't exist when the minion was defeated? Sure, but it's completely counterintuitive and utterly absent from the rules. It's also just plain bad rules design. Effects which aren't active when an event occurs don't get triggered. That's pretty fundamental to every sane rule system out there. Heck, they even demonstrate in a number of other cards how they SHOULD template this to handle the "isolated sentences" structure, but even with all the other correct examples you can't admit they just screwed this one up.

Or you could write the sentence well, eliminating unnecessary words:

Mark went to the room, started the computer, and made a cup of coffee.

With sufficient effort, any sentence can be written poorly.

On 11/21/2019 at 4:12 PM, Hippie Moosen said:

We need a person who judges MTG tourneys to come in and proof read cards before they're sent to the printer. Those people are gonna be pretty good at spotting problematic wordings and such.

Totally Agreed!!