Since English is not our first language, my group didn't catch that subtlety with "or" having two meaning. That being said, we still have debates regarding certain powers. Could you state what are your stance on these powers, is it "both" or "one or the other"? Thanks.
JIRELLE :
• If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of that character's turn.
Two problems here, I think. Should or be inclusive (I think to stay consistent, yes) and who does "that character" refer to? I think either Jirelle or the other character on the ship.
As I pointed out over in that thread, this power doesn't read well with the power feat removed:
If you are on a ship, you may move at the end of that character's turn.
Without the feat, "that character" seems to be undefined. Even after you take the feat, it seems like you might only be able to use the power when it isn't your turn.
If you are on a ship, you or another character on the ship may move at the end of that character's turn.
In this case "that character" seems to define the "other character on the ship" so Jirelle couldn't move at the end of her own turn.
I can think of a few possible intentions, but I can't figure out which one makes the most sense. I'm keeping in mind here that, other than Ranzak's greed, no power feat has made a power not able to do what it did before the power feat, except feats that add flat numbers, but there is only one known instance where you would maybe want +2 instead of +3, so I'm ignoring that. So I'm working from, your power feat shouldn't make you able to do what you did before the feat.
Since it is clear Jirelle has to be on a ship, this means she will either be the commander, be with the commander, or be at the ships location when it is anchored.
There are a few factors that go into this:
1. Anchored vs unanchored ships.
2. Relation between the "turn character" and the "moved character".
POSSIBILITY 1: Replace "that character" with "the commander's".
If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of the commander's turn.
This basically means:
1. Jirelle can move at the end of her turn when she is on a ship, whether anchored or not. If the ship isn't anchored, everyone can come with her.2. Jirelle can move at the end of someone else's turn, provided that person is commanding an unachored ship.
3. Jirelle can move at the end of someone else's when they are commanding an anchored ship and she it at their location.
4. With the powerfeat, she can do the same but move anyone else on the ship, commander or not. If she moves the commander in an unanchored situation, everyone can move as well, including herself.
POSSIBILITY 2: Replace "that character" with "the".
If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of the turn.
This basically means:
1. Jirelle can move at the end of her turn when she is on a ship, whether anchored or not. If the ship isn't anchored, everyone can come with her.2. Jirelle can move at the end of someone else's turn, provided that person is commanding an unanchored ship.
3. Jirelle can move at the end of someone else's turn when they are commanding an anchored ship and she is at their location.
4. Jirelle can move at the end of someone else's turn when she is at the ships anchored location and the turn player is not.
5. With the powerfeat, she can do the same but move anyone else on the ship, commander or not. If she moves the commander in an unanchored situation, everyone can move as well, including herself.
This one seems to remove too much of the "that character" intention.
POSSIBILITY 3: Replace "another character" and "that character" with "the commander's".
If you are on a ship, you (□ or the commander of the ship) may move at the end of the commander's turn.
This basically means:
1. Jirelle can move at the end of her turn when she is on a ship, whether anchored or not. If the ship isn't anchored, everyone can come with her.2. Jirelle can move at the end of someone else's turn, provided that person is commanding an unachored ship.
3. Jirelle can move at the end of someone else's when they are commanding an anchored ship and she it at their location.
4. With the powerfeat, she can do the same but move the commander of the ship, commander or not. Everyone can move as well, including herself.
Ok. That I think is as much as I can get my head around right now. I'm not sure which one of those is really meant.
Oups, I shouldn't have open that can, now there's worms everywhere! ;p
OK for once let ME humbly try to close a can'o'worms.
Since Mike very recently in another thread about "or" reminded us that cards have no memory, it could actually be rephrased in two different powers, avoiding all issues :
At the end of your turn, if you are on a ship, you may move.
□ At the end of another character's turn, if you are with him on a ship, he may move.
I think this is much clearer without at all changing the gameplay.
Note that :
A) In both cases the ship moves with the character moving UNLESS it is anchored.
B) In the second case, Jirelle is not moving.
So, this is how I read it. Without the power feat it reads "if you are on a ship, you may move at the end of your turn" (that character refers to whose turn is ending). With the power feat, if anyone is at your location when they end their turn and are also on a ship(either because the ship isn't anchored or because both you and them are at the location of the anchored ship), then the character whose turn is ending gets to move.
So, I agree with the rewording proposed by Frencois as the correct way to read it (although swap out he/him with she/her as character powers reference that character's gender when using third person pronouns from my recollection).
|
Since English is not our first language, my group didn't catch that subtlety with "or" having two meaning. That being said, we still have debates regarding certain powers. Could you state what are your stance on these powers, is it "both" or "one or the other"? Thanks.
JIRELLE :
• If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of that character's turn.
In standard American English, "Or" is the "exclusive Or" by default.
"Should I buy this car or that car?" -- Most people don't mean both.
In programming languages, "Or" is the "inclusive Or" by default.
(It's Friday and my brain is too fried from too much programming to make an example, sorry.)
Yeah, the question here isn't whether Jirelle can move and also allow someone else to move. (The answer to that is no.) The question is, what exactly does "at the end of that character's turn" mean.
I should have clarified that.
In standard American English, "Or" is the "exclusive Or" by default.
"Should I buy this car or that car?" -- Most people don't mean both.In programming languages, "Or" is the "inclusive Or" by default.
(It's Friday and my brain is too fried from too much programming to make an example, sorry.)
Programming example: if (the car is red or blue), buy the car. If either statement is true, buy the car.
I don't think the programming example has any application here though, just a bit of trivia. I also agree with Hawkmoon's statement, if Jirelle chooses to use her power to move herself, she cannot use it to move anyone else.
|
|
I agree, one or the other. I think if a power says "Trigger X OR Trigger Y", then or is the inclusive and can be done at each trigger. However, if it's "Result X OR Result Y", it's one or the other. Basically, while a power can trigger at multiple points, each trigger is only going to do one thing or the other.
I'm with Fencois and Skizzerz - 'that character' is a reference to either you or the other character. You move on your turn, they move on theirs.
But what I've been thinking this whole time is that the move could include others characters, since you'd be moving the ship (when not anchored).
Or is moving the ship only possible as part of your 'move phase' move?
Chief Technical Officer
|
Since English is not our first language, my group didn't catch that subtlety with "or" having two meaning. That being said, we still have debates regarding certain powers. Could you state what are your stance on these powers, is it "both" or "one or the other"? Thanks.
JIRELLE :
• If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of that character's turn.
One character gets to move per use of the power. If we wanted you *and* another character to move, we'd have said "and." If we wanted you to have the choice, we'd have said "and/or" (or more likely, constructed the power differently). "That character" refers to the character that moved.
Would this be clearer as two powers? Absolutely. But we have to work within the constraints of the card, and that wouldn't fit.
I still feel like "that character" is confusing. Is it equivalent to "If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of the turn."
If not, how is it functionally different?
I still feel like "that character" is confusing. Is it equivalent to "If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of the turn."
If not, how is it functionally different?
At the end of the turn is unclear. Who's turn? Jirelle's? The character that moves? Every turn?
The wording used attempts to make it clear that it happens at the end of the turn of the character being moved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Ok. So she can effectively only move the commander of the ship, whether it is her or someone else. Then of course everyone has the option to move with the commander, provided the ship wasn't anchored.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Ah. Ok. So she can effectively only move the commander of the ship, whether it is her or someone else. Then of course everyone has the option to move with the commander, provided the ship wasn't anchored.
I think you've got it... But I'll point Mike here just in case we're both missing something.
...
...One character gets to move per use of the power. If we wanted you *and* another character to move, we'd have said "and." If we wanted you to have the choice, we'd have said "and/or" (or more likely, constructed the power differently). "That character" refers to the character that moved.
Would this be clearer as two powers? Absolutely. But we have to work within the constraints of the card, and that wouldn't fit.
Sadly, this comes up because there's other cards where 'or' was used as "and/or," yet that wording wasn't used.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qi10?Lem-Virtuoso-discard-exchange
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1181088/seelah-supplemental-card-power/ page/1 (note that in this one, I said mostly what Vic said (that they'd use and/or if it was intended), but then struck through it because of Mike's response below which was in disagreement with that)
Ah. Ok. So she can effectively only move the commander of the ship, whether it is her or someone else. Then of course everyone has the option to move with the commander, provided the ship wasn't anchored.
As I wrote above, this is exactly my understanding (although I would have more generally say "provided the ship can move").
Thus the rewording I was proposing last week.
One character gets to move per use of the power. If we wanted you *and* another character to move, we'd have said "and." If we wanted you to have the choice, we'd have said "and/or" (or more likely, constructed the power differently). "That character" refers to the character that moved.Since English is not our first language, my group didn't catch that subtlety with "or" having two meaning. That being said, we still have debates regarding certain powers. Could you state what are your stance on these powers, is it "both" or "one or the other"? Thanks.
JIRELLE :
• If you are on a ship, you (□ or another character on the ship) may move at the end of that character's turn.
That answer confuse me! With what I read on other topics, I thought you couldn't use "and" because it would mean that you can only use the power if you could move your character and the other one and that's why "or" was use.
And I don't remember seeing "and/or" on cards, but I'm not a fine connoisseur as Mister Moon here.
Again, sorry if this all seems evident to you Vic, but we're just trying to appreciate the game as close as it was meant to play.
@Butch_Brune: Vic's answer is stating that the power as worded does not give you a choice of who you can move, you always move the character whose turn it is. If the intent was to give a choice, the power would have indicated that by including the words "or" or "and/or." Vic's statement reaffirms Frencois' proposed wording above (the one that split it into two powers) but added that due to space constraints they couldn't format it like that on the card itself. If it helps you understand it better (and Mike doesn't pop in to say all of us are horribly wrong and should be eaten by Galvos) then you should use that wording to split it into two powers instead of the current wording, as they are functionally the same.
So, the character whose turn is ending gets to move provided they are both 1) on a ship and 2) at Jirelle's location. Other characters can move with them since they are also on the ship unless the ship is anchored, wrecked, or there are other movement restrictions in play from barriers, locations, or scenarios.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
...One character gets to move per use of the power. If we wanted you *and* another character to move, we'd have said "and." If we wanted you to have the choice, we'd have said "and/or" (or more likely, constructed the power differently). "That character" refers to the character that moved.
Would this be clearer as two powers? Absolutely. But we have to work within the constraints of the card, and that wouldn't fit.
Sadly, this comes up because there's other cards where 'or' was used as "and/or," yet that wording wasn't used.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qi10?Lem-Virtuoso-discard-exchange
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1181088/seelah-supplemental-card-power/ page/1 (note that in this one, I said mostly what Vic said (that they'd use and/or if it was intended), but then struck through it because of Mike's response below which was in disagreement with that)
Those examples are not the same. In those cases, the question is really "If I do one now, can I do the other later?" And the answer to that question is yes. We used "or" on that card, because you *may* do the other later, but you do not *have* to do the other later. If we had used "and," you would be *required* to do the other later.
In this case, the question is really "Can I do both at the same time?" And the answer is no. We used "or" because you must do one or the other; if we'd used "and," you would be required to do both.
FYI: Vic has called this to my attention and I'm poking at it to see what the team thinks.
Those examples are not the same. In those cases, the question is really "If I do one now, can I do the other later?" And the answer to that question is yes. We used "or" on that card, because you *may* do the other later, but you do not *have* to do the other later. If we had used "and," you would be *required* to do the other later.
In this case, the question is really "Can I do both at the same time?" And the answer is no. We used "or" because you must do one or the other; if we'd used "and," you would be required to do both.
Thanks Vic, that explanation was much clearer.
...
...lotsaquotes...
...Those examples are not the same. In those cases, the question is really "If I do one now, can I do the other later?" And the answer to that question is yes. We used "or" on that card, because you *may* do the other later, but you do not *have* to do the other later. If we had used "and," you would be *required* to do the other later.
In this case, the question is really "Can I do both at the same time?" And the answer is no. We used "or" because you must do one or the other; if we'd used "and," you would be required to do both.
I wasn't talking about using just 'and'; I was talking about using 'and/or'. I understand that the situation and abilities of the cards aren't the same, however, in those links, you're using 'or' to mean 'and/or' as in you could do it now, you could do it later, or you could do it both now and later. That would be "Now and/or later" making one, the other, or both possible.
In this instance, though, you're using 'or' again, and it means one, the other, but not both.
You've now used one word, "or", a word that people's experience is tied to its use for one way or the other for the most part, to describe multiple situations with two different meanings.
In language context, if I say "Choose A or B" then a person would naturally pick one or the other and never even assume that both was an option. In programming, "A or B" is a statement of something that's already happened and compared to it, if A happened, it's good, if B happened, it's good, if A and B happened, it's still good, so all of those are options.
My common sense tells me that or means or, not and/or, so it works for this forum topic here in which you say choose one or the other but not both, but just like the second link I posted, there, it didn't work, because or wasn't used as an or, it was used as an and/or, and until that point, I would have been playing the card wrong, because I assumed, based on my knowledge of language, that or was exclusive, not inclusive.
If 'and/or' is the intended uses for those other situations, then it really should be worded as such. Just like before when using 'encounter' to mean two different things in-game, using one word for multiple different meanings can get confusing quickly and lead to these kinds of questions.
If PACG consistently used 'or' to actually mean 'or' as in "one or the other but not both", and used and/or to mean "one, the other, or both", it certainly wouldn't hurt and would reduce questions related to 'is it inclusive or exclusive this time?'.
We've settled this. The wording is not final, but what we mean is:
▢ If you are on a ship, you may move at the end of your turn (▢ or the commander of your ship may move at the end of her turn).
Mike, you've probably caught this already, but just to be sure, "commander" isn't defined in the rulebook so if you actually use "commander" you'd have to define it.
Would this text fix it all?
▢ If you are on a ship at the end of your (▢ or the current player's) turn, the current player may move.
So, if it's your turn, you're the current player, and you can move at the end of it.
If it's not your turn and the second box is checked, since the character commanding the ship is the current player, then that player may move, but if that player decides not to, then that's the end of it (since you're not the current player, you can't move).
(also, should it be 'on an unanchored ship'? The reason being, if a ship is anchored, it's possible that you might be on that ship, however, the current player may not be, thus, not actually commanding that ship. Though, unanchored apparently isn't an actual word... go figure.) If that's the intent of that ability, then that's definitely one of the ways it can be worded. If that split movement thing (you here on ship, current player over there not on ship) isn't intended, though, then maybe use the following possible rewordings?
▢ At the end of your (▢ or another player's) turn, if you are on a ship, the player commanding the ship may move.
▢ If you are on a ship at the end of your (▢ or another player's) turn, the player commanding the ship may move.
Both of those work because the player commanding the ship is always the player whose turn it currently is, anyway. However, anchored ships will work differently than above (as mentioned in the unanchored bit).
If the ship isn't anchored, then all's well, and if it is anchored, then the current player must be at that location, too, since if your ship is anchored, you are only commanding it if you're at the location it's anchored at.
Hence the words "The wording is not final."