Recently re-read the Knight Skill card and came to the realization that we were quite probably doing it wrong this entire time.

The card reads: "When you declare a Battle action, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up) and may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn."

We've always played this card as When declaring a battle action spend 2 fatigue to get both bonuses, and had never noticed that actually it more correctly reads that you only have to spend fatigue to get the movement, you always get the additional attacks if you declare a battle action.

Just curious if there's an official ruling out there.

I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that you still need to spend the 2 fatigue to get the 3 attacks.

We always play the card as you need to spend the fatigue even if you just make the attacks and choose not to move.

Because the and is not conjoining two independent clauses, I believe you have to use the two fatigue to gain both bonuses. That is how I would play it.

For some reason this is reminding me of an "official" ruling that was done a while ago, maybe Kevin chiming in on the boards or something. But the answer was that the to use the any of the ability you had to spend 2 fatigue (i.e. to move with a battle, or to get three attacks).

-shnar

shnar said:

two things:

1. In the faq, it clarifies that to use leadership you need to spend the fatigue to give away the order, even if you don't need two other half actions. So..if you apply this to knight, you would need to spend the fatigue to get any advantage of knight.

2. If you take into account that knight is a fighting skill that (at least before rtl) is generally given to melee heroes, then also take into account that most of them have a speed of three (and most of the rest 4), activating knight means you get two movement and 3 attacks. If all knight did was give you the two movement when you declare a battle action for two fatigue, what would be the advantage? Any hero can declare a battle action and then spend two fatigue for two movement. But an extra attack...that's really what you're paying for. I know that ispher with swift can move four and have 3 attacks, but those are rare (or wise, if playing rtl). circumstances that also really make knight shine.

Also, if you consider able warrior (spend two immediately upon an advance action to get two attacks instead of one) it's clear that what your getting for your two fatigue is an extra attack. Something that gives you an extra attack for just declaring a certain type of action, is pretty overpowered...which is why I think you should have to spend fatigue for unmovable (or maybe just not be able to move that turn, even with fatigue)...but that's a whole other issue.

Feanor said:

QFT. If your two fatigue gives you two movement only, you're not getting anything. You can always spend two fatigue for two movement. The only way the card makes sense is if you only get the extra attack when you spend two fatigue.

A series of observations:

1. As written , Knight grants you the attack whether you spend fatigue or not. That may not have been the intent, but that's what the card actually says. That's just a matter of syntax. I'll explain that in greater detail if you really want, but while it might be confusing, it's not at all ambiguous.

2. Descent skills are not remotely equally powerful. Sure, Knight is pretty clearly better than Able Warrior even if you require spending fatigue to get any bonus, but it's also pretty clearly worse than Unmovable even if you can get the free attack without spending fatigue. Saying that it should obviously work one way or the other due to balance considerations is fairly ridiculous when it is neither the strongest nor weakest skill in either case. Descent just isn't that balanced.

3. Spending 2 fatigue to move half your speed is a pretty lame bonus, especially on characters likely to have this skill, but that wasn't necessarily true when it was written. We've got several quests that require you to use more figures than come with the game because the quests were written before the figure counts were known; there could plausibly have been skills written before the hero stats were finalized, and the writer could have thought speeds would be higher than they are. Or they could have thought that there would be a bunch of items or training tokens that increase speed or something. Hindsight is 20/20.

4. Then again, the writing in Descent is hardly a shining example of clear thought or good editing, so it is entirely plausible that they just screwed up the wording and said something different from what they meant. They certainly could have written it better, no matter which version was intended.

Probably reasonable to put on the list of unanswered questions.

Wow, I reread it again and realized Antistone is correct. It says that you get half your speed for 2 fatigue if you declare a battle and you get 3 attacks if you declare a battle. I have been reading it incorrectly. Thanks, Antistone, for correcting us. I am going to whoop up on the Overlord now. (I hate abbreviations!)

PastorJK said:

Before you go on whoooping the OL, I think the ruling on Leadership takes precedence here. On the Leadership card, it was 'very' ambigeous if you paid to use the card, or paid to use the upper half of the card as the two abilities was seperated by space. In the case of Leadership, it was recently FAQ'ed that you had to spend the fatigue in order to use the card either way. I think it is safe to assume that the same goes for Knight.

Right, this comes down to linguistics...

If you say "you get A and B or C" does this mean you get A, and then your choice of B or C, or do you get both A and B, or neither of those and C.

The card can have either meaning, purely literally. Either you declare the battle action, get the extra attack, AND (in addition to all that) get 2 movement points...

Or,

declare the battle action and spend the 2 fatigues, to get both benefits.

The reading here comes down to the context, not a simple mathematical analysis of the lack of parenthesis to properly order conjunctions.

The contextual reading, consistent w other traits, and the leadership faq, is that you pay the cost, then you get the abilities. "You do A to get B and C" in this case should not be taken as "You do A to get B, and you get C". That's not how common english would be interpreted (altho literally, it can be).

IF it was meant the other way around, it would have reversed them... i.e... when you declare a battle action, you may make 3 attacks instead of 2, and may spend 2 fatigue to gain 2 movement points. Since it was not written that way, but in the reverse, the context tells you it was you spend the cost to get the two abilities - else, they would have been broken into a separate sentence!

If both abilities were not meant to be part of the same condition, then there would have been a period after the bit about movement, followed by a new sentence: In addition, you get to make 3 attacks instead of 2..."

They were both in the same sentence - after the same condition - so they are both subject to the 2 fatigue requirement.

If I told my overlord that because I have knight that I now get 3 attacks whenever I declare a battle action with Tahlia, and I now have the added benefit of being able to spend 2 fatigue for 2 movement...which apparently something I didn't have before with battle actions...he would laugh at me.

Whether you think the precise wording tells you at works this way or not, common sense tells me it doesn't. Once again, if the fatigue was only needed to be spent for movement, why even include that in the skill since fatigue can be spent for movement. Right, just in case someone has a speed of 5 or greater...so you get to save maybe one fatigue. That makes sense.

As to the wording, I think the fact that it says you get 3 attacks instead of 2 THIS turn implies that there is something special about THIS turn (like you immediately spend 2 fatigue after declaring a battle action) that gives extra attacks on your battle action.

But hey, let's do what we can to argue semantics so we can confuse players on the forum to cause them to break the knight skill right in half. I'm gonna leave as one of the best skills out there and only take 3 attacks if I spend the fatigue.

edderkoppen said:

Your reasoning is that because they did something similar on another card, and it was a mistake, that every place they ever did anything similar must also be a mistake? Sounds pretty flimsy to me.

poobaloo said:

No. You're analyzing an example you made up instead of what the card actually says.

Knight says:

When you declare a Battle action, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up) and may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn.

Grammatically, two phrases cannot be joined by an "and" unless they can be joined in either order. That is, you cannot say "A and B" unless it would also be syntactically acceptable to say "B and A". We can therefore infer the grouping based on grammatical rules.

Here's the one that works:

When you declare a Battle action, you
may immediately spend 2 fatigue to gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up)
and
may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn.

Reverses to:

When you declare a Battle action, you
may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn
and
may immediately spend 2 fatigue to gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up)

That reversal makes perfect sense. In order to make the attack dependent on the fatigue, you'd have to parse it something like this:

When you declare a Battle action, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to
gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up)
and
may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn.

Which reverses to...

When you declare a Battle action, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to
may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn
and
gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up)

Which is clearly incorrect. The word "may" in the second subclause indicates that the first "may" has to be part of the first subclause, which means that spending fatigue is also part of the first subclause.

This might sound horrible but...I never remember semantics arguments like this ever showing up on the old forum.

Sometimes I really miss the old forum.

This is not 2 clauses like you say...

A) you may spend 2 fatigue to gain movement points

and

B) you may make 3 attacks instead of 2

Rather, it's a condition, and compound action.

i.e. when you declare a battle action, you may...

A) spend 2 fatigue to gain movement

and

B) you may make 3 attacks instaed of 2.

I realize the improperly positioned extra "may" but let's face it, the entire first half of the card is meaningless if you take your interpretation. It might as well not be there (as others have pointed out, save for situations where one has +5 movement). So while a grammatical computer program might interpret it your way, we are human, and capable of reading things in context. In the context this is in, it makes sense only to read it in the one way.

As with all other cards, it is first the cost, then the effect.

And you of all people are not one to point out how referring to precedents set by other cards is fallible logic, you do that all the time out here. You point to wording on other things, and say that to be consistent, etc. Again, this is a very simple card, the whole first part of the card is not about spending 2 fatigue to do what you could otherwise do, plus something else.

As always too, if anyone wants to play games w such overly literal and out-of-context interpretations, that's up to them! You can turn any rulebook into mishmash by overanalyzing exact wording and looking for fallacies.

-mike

Big Remy said:

Well there has been so much focus lately out here on specific wordings, and I've always maintained that rules are meant to be read and interpreted by 8-year-olds, not legal documents. Thus they leave gaps, flaws, etc to a pick-apart reader, but ppl really have to just relax and try to get the jist of a card, read it in context, and not overanalyze. Cuz once you do that, you end up in wierd situations like a Knight card that grants one the right to spend 2 fatigue to gain possibly less than 2 movement. (?)

I would much rather focus on gameplay, new heroes, and such! I enjoy those threads tremendously.

There are two questions that may be asked:

1) What does the card say?

2) What did the author intend the card to do?

The answer to #1 is that you get an extra attack, and can spend fatigue for extra movement. That's what the card says. Even "in context." That's a simple matter of fact. If that's not how you read it, then you are reading it wrong. Not "more relaxed," not "in context," just wrong. I was perfectly relaxed when I first read it and it didn't even occur to me that someone might think you were supposed to spend fatigue to get the extra attack.

If you want to argue that the answer to the second question is that the attack (as well as the movement) is contingent upon spending fatigue, I agree that you are most likely correct. But that's not because that's what any reasonable person would automatically assume when looking at the card, that's because a detailed analysis of a huge volume of cards (heroes, skills, items, etc.) and effective tactics in the actual game makes the ability unlikely combined with the fact that I already know there are many other mistakes in the rules.

If heroes in this game typically had 5-7 speed or if there were lots of items and skills that raised speed or if the rules were generally impeccably written I would disagree. In fact, I did disagree back when I first saw the Knight skill card during my second game and I didn't yet know that all of that stuff wasn't the case, and I was greatly surprised to hear someone suggest that you might have to spend fatigue to get the extra attack. It isn't a matter of reading casually versus analytically, it's a matter of having a metric ton of background knowledge that lets you determine that things don't add up and therefore there is probably a mistake on the card, and that therefore it should be fixed . Your answer actually requires far more analysis to reach in any sane fashion. And even then, you can't be 100% sure.

And I may extend precedents a lot, but only into areas where there were previously no rules at all, so some arbitrary decision has to be made. I don't ignore actual clear and specific rules just because some other part of the game does something differently--for example, I don't declare that armor only protects the figure that has it, and therefore that Fear shouldn't protect any other figures from area attacks, despite the fact that the rulebook clearly and specifically states that it does.

Nor do I say "oh look, they changed the speed maximum on the Golden Armor from 4 to 3; clearly they meant to do the same thing on the Chainmail, too, and just overlooked it."

But it doesn't. The card clearly (and grammatically) states that you spend fatigue, you get an extra attack and some extra movement. How is that unclear? If the card was meant to give you an extra attack at all times, it would have read, " When you declare a Battle action, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up). You may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn. " Notice the period? Because the real card says AND instead of a PERIOD, the two thoughts are conjoined, together. So you don't get the extra attack unless you spend the two fatigue.

I can see how someone might mistake this at a quick, casual read. But once you take your time and really read the card on how it's printed, how is this even remotely confusing?

-shnar

You're deliberately trying to drive me crazy, aren't you?

• The card says that you get an extra attack and can spend fatigue for movement, not that the extra attack is contingent on spending fatigue. I have already explained in detail why this is the only grammatical reading.
• What you claim the card should say in order to make the attack independent of the fatigue wouldn't mean the same thing, because it separates the extra attack from the "when you declare a battle action" condition.
• The card is confusingly-worded regardless of what it's supposed to mean. There are much better ways to say that the attack is independent of spending fatigue, but there are also much better ways to say that they're linked. The fact that you can think of something else that it "should" say means nothing at all.
• I have already stated that it is probably intended to require you to spend fatigue to get the extra attack. That doesn't mean that the card says that.

Please either give an actual reason (or at least a refutation of the reasoning I already spelled out) or stop talking.

I believe he did give a reason, and it was much more concisely worded than mine! The presence of the word "and" instead of a period - stop - begin new benefit - meant the two benefits are both linked to the condition of spending two fatigue.

Spend 2 fatigue to do this and do this ... means you spend 2 fatigue to do both... not spend 2 fatigue to do the first part, and you get the 2nd part no matter what. If that latter were intended, the wording would be exactly as shnar put it. The entire sentence begins with a condition - and the two phrases at the end are tied by an and. It is complete literary bogus to say that there are two distinct and unrelated statements in one sentence - at a bare minimum they should be separated with a semicolon if they meant to break out of the sentence being conditional upon the 2 fatigue.

-mike

Just my two cents and i am not even a native speaker.

I think as most of you do (even Antistone) that you have to pay the two fatigue to get both things.

But Antistone has a valid point. The condition is to declare a battle action, not to spend 2 fatigue .

If you put it like this: When you declare a Battle action, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up). You may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn.

someone could argue that you always have 3 attacks as the second sentence is in no way conected to the first. Everyone would point out that it must refer to "declare a battle action" because of the "instead of 2"-part but perhaps there are synergies that give you a second attack without declaring a battle action (dont remember the skill card but there is one, i am sure).

A better and more clear wording might have been: "When you declare a Battle action and immediately spend 2 fatigue you may gain movement points equal to half your speed (round up) and you may make 3 attacks instead of 2 this turn."

But now we have to use semantics or common sense. Everyone as he/she likes.

poobaloo said:

Go back and read reply #12. He already shot this reason down in flames and provided a detailed explanation of exactly why it must be technically read as two separate benefits.

Restating the same arguments that have already been countered is not giving a reason.

Unless this is possibly a separated by a common language thing? Less precise (simplified) US usage of the English language?

Corbon said:

This is such a bogus argument to say it must be technically read that way. Nothing must be, or we wouldnt be out here discussing this. This is strictly a matter of opinion and discussion, and you are not an authority to declare it one way or another, so please try to refrain from doing so. Antistone and yourself have your opinions, I respect that. But it is in poor forum eitquette to say one opinion is right and another is wrong, or to declare your opinion more right than another.

I DO see how you can make the point you are. You dont need to point to previous posts and say "because of this post, clearly this is the answer". That is a copout. I could say because of Shnar's point, clearly it means this. Bah. I am well educated, I understand your argument.

I DO also see Shnar's point, that this is ONE sentence containing one condition and two clauses linked by an and . If the intent was a condition and one clause, followed by another independent ability, then it would have been in a separate sentence, like all other cards which have multiple abilities are done.

This is one condition - two clauses that apply when the condition of the battle action and two fatigues are met.

I think we can all agree, that like many things in Descent, the game was not reviewed by a literary scholar that plays Descent as rigorously as you do, for a good year, before publishing the cards. Rather they were written by likely a game-manual writer who targets the writings to be understood by 12-year olds, and writes manuals for hundreds of games FFG publishes. The writings may leave certain conditoins and clauses not completely paired and closed, and this one definitely has two possible readings.

If you'd like to do a test, take this card to 50 random people, give them no background, and ask them to read the card. I'm guessing about 48 of them would read it the way Shnar and others do, and 2 might not, pending if you included Antistone and yourself in your data set or not. I dont want to put the time in myself to prove this, but just try to back off the literary analysis, read the card as if you're 12, and think about what it says and means. Sometimes it's easy to overanalyze a card a lot - focusing too much on the individual words, and not enough on what the card really says, this being one such case. I know that probly sounds like a silly distinction to a purist like yourself, but it's true.

Given there are two equally valid readings literally, one must resort to the context, and the fact there's the and in the subsequent clauses indicates both clauses are dependent on the conditions. Else they would have been broken by a period and new sentence. (or semicolon would do the trick)

Now I know the next response, which is "if you want to play it that way, feel free" which obviously applies to everyone, yourself included, as you break one sentence into two and play your games that way. To each his own.

poobaloo said:

Sorry, dont want to upset you, but that is what grammar is for. There are rules for reading things.

And Antistone is just pointing them out, as in Descent some things are not allways so clear.

You claim any 12-year old should understand the card as written, but if even grown-ups discuss such things how can a junior be sure to interpret them correctly?

poobaloo said:

2, 2+. Apparently not. Post #12 gives a detailed explanation that counter's Shnar's reason and provides another. Shnar's post does nothing to counter the counter, just restated the same old reason - which has already been demonstrated in post #12 to be insufficient reason. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to ask someone coming in mid discussion to come in where the discussion is now rather than takes us back over ground that has been covered already.

3. In English, there are not two equally valid readings.
The 'and' does not exclusively link the two clauses (clause 1: may move 1/2 speed, clause 2: may make 3 attacks) - it can equally validly link the two actions (action 1: spend 2 fatigue to move half speed, action 2: make 3 attacks) and does not require a semicolon or period/new sentence to do so. This appears to give us two valid readings.
However post #12 shows that, written the way it is, linking the 2 clauses is in fact not a valid reading.

However, correct technical reading or not, I am sure that everyone agrees that it should be played as though the two clauses are linked rather than the two actions.