The simple one of the day. I guess the answer is obvious (and maybe somewhere already in the rules/FAQ/forums) but we didn't find it, so it's up to the veterans of the forum:
Display this card next to a location. Reduce damage dealt by monsters at that location by 3.
Before you act, each character is dealt d6 damage.
Mist Horn is displayed at location HERE.
A) I encounter the Dragon at HERE. Does another character at THERE location benefit from the damage reduction?
B) I encounter the Dragon at THERE. Does another character at HERE location benefit from the damage reduction?
It's certainly me not being a native english speaker but I can't figure this one out: "That location refers to the location where the Mist is displayed or the one of the monster?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The English is ambiguous.
The clearest reading is that it is the monsters who are at the Mist Horn location; when a monster at that location deals damage to anyone, reduce it by 3.
An alternative reading is the damage is being dealt at the Mist Horn's location; if a monster anywhere dealt the damage, reduce it by 3. That's a bit forced, though.
I'd play (A) and not (B).
An alternative reading is the damage is being dealt at the Mist Horn's location; if a monster anywhere dealt the damage, reduce it by 3. That's a bit forced, though.
I don't see how that is forced. While I'd rather not throw my hat in the ring for English grammar (being non-native too), we also have game mechanics and even "flavor logic" (slippery slope as that might be) to fall back on when looking for intent. Based on that, it seems pretty clear to me the power parces as:
"Display this card next to a location. Reduce damage dealt by [any_card_type_you_may_want_to_insert] at the location "this card" is displayed at"
The reading:
"reduce damage dealt [to any character at that location] by monsters by 3"
is forced because "damage dealt at [a] location" is not language usually used in the game. However, "damaged dealt by [monster x]" is standard game language.
The reading:
"reduce damage dealt by monsters [which are located at] that location by 3"
is both more natural and more akin to other similar cards. (Characters, banes, boons - these have locations. Encounters, damage - these do not.)
For all that - I could be wrong about this.
The reading:
"reduce damage dealt [to any character at that location] by monsters by 3"
is forced because "damage dealt at [a] location" is not language usually used in the game. However, "damaged dealt by [monster x]" is standard game language.
The reading:
"reduce damage dealt by monsters [which are located at] that location by 3"
is both more natural and more akin to other similar cards. (Characters, banes, boons - these have locations. Encounters, damage - these do not.)
For all that - I could be wrong about this.
Respectfully, elcoderdude, even if we ignore multiple locations with powers that implicitly read "All damage (dealt At This Location) is X", I don't think "unusual language" is a solid argument in a game based around *exceptions*. You and me both have probably at least once examined our locations with a power that says "examine your deck" - yet, despite not being a very common wording, that is not a WRONG wording, and it very definitely means something different from the "usual language" for examination powers.
For what it's worth, however, you're right that the "old" wording is ambiguous re: "damage location" - there's a "damage source (bane) location" and "damage target (character) location". Yet, it occurs to me that the 2.0 language might actually solve this - if we try to replace it, the new Horn would say:
"Damage by monsters suffered at this location is reduced"
Note that while the old word (adjective? participle?)"dealt" was ambiguous as, context notwithstanding, the power could be parced as either (dealt by a monster)(that is at this location) OR (dealt to a character at this location)(by a monster), the new word "suffer" leaves no such opportunity (as it may not be applied to a bane at all, but only to a character)
I have to admit, I was skeptical of this particular change to the verbiage, but it seems it's proving its merit even earlier than expected.
My only conclusion is that it's after all a good candidate my weekly Can'O'Worms contest.
Stange I haven't seen it before.
Anyway, a feed-back from one of the high powers would be appreciated.
And I agree (as usual) with Longshot that if the 2.0 wording is indeed using "suffered" then let's welcome the change.
What's so hard about this?
Damage dealt by monsters at the location that the Mist Horn is displayed at is reduced by 3.
I don't see any ambiguity (but I'm not looking for any, either).
Brother Tyler - I'm not even understanding which side you are agreeing with.
Either the characters suffering the damage are at the same location as the Mist Horn, or the monsters inflicting the damage are at the same location as the Mist Horn.
Are you arguing for the second?
I think Brother Tyler is arguing for 2) Monster at same location as horn has all damage reduced
I am aligned with 2) as well
I would agree that it cares about monster location, because the modifier is closest to “monster” rather than “damage dealt.” It could have been written just as easily “Reduce damage dealt at this location by monsters by 3.” The proximity helps derive context here.
Although this interpretation has the unusual effect of being useless against summoned monsters, as summoned cards are not part of any location deck (and therefore aren’t at any location). That gotcha made me originally type an argument for the other interpretation, but I couldn’t come up with enough support for that argument so I went with the first thought that came to my mind as a native speaker.