Card of the day - Bad Wolf

[Paradox]

No worries or need to apologize, I recognized your passion for what it was and took no offense. (I did sense a little exaggeration, hyperbole and sarcasm, but being a fan of all those things myself, I appreciated it for what it was )

Guilty as charged. Ready to move on.

I too, use the read aloud test, and the new wording works for me because I've read it many times in other games.

Not to be contrarian, I never read that where the source and the recipient are one in the same.

I'll be fair though.. I don't play a lot of TCG. In the first few years of Magic the culture it created it really turned me off. Subsequent games (including later series of Magic when it went mainstream) scared me off because I was always afraid that cards were constantly being made obsolete by new series. I'm going into Shadow Era with open-eyes that something similar might happen. It is a TCG after all. However I'm willing to give it a chance. It's also attractive in the sense that it doesn't have 1000's of cards and that the community is new. I.e. I'm getting in on the ground floor.

Back to point, I play a lot of face to face 'pencil and paper' RPGs.. for which I have done some freelance writing. That's a slightly different medium, but it is in the same neighborhood.

I guess your issue isn't with using, "himself," as much as the, "from," now.

Now? Come on, Kirkwb. Play fair. I said I didn't like the entire phrase "from himself" but in my last post I wrote that the use of the word "from" is what makes it bad grammar. That's not a new opinion, that's merely a refinement on the original one. If you absolutely must identify who gets the healing than there has to be a less awkward way to express it.

And there's no need to guess, I was quite explicit.

I do not know how else to describe the removal of damage.

If a card deals damage to something, I use, "to."

And so you should. That actually makes sense.

Example: The Bad Wolf does 3 damage to the Fighter.

If a card heals damage from something, I use, "from."

This is less clear cut. There are instances where you would use the word "from".

For example: The cleric heals 1 damage from the fighter. That's fine.

"The fighter is healed 1 damage" also makes perfect sense (if not a bit passive). As does "the fighter heals himself 1 damage".

The fighter heals 1 damage from himself? That's weird. No I have not ever read that in a game before. I would expect: "The fighter heals 1 damage." To me there is zero ambiguity that with the absence of another subject.

Further examples: When I take off of my shirt, I write: "Paradox removes his shirt" I don't write "Paradox removes his shirt from himself". Why would I assume that my shirt was on someone else in that case? But hey- it's possible. In that case I would write: "Paradox removes his shirt from Jasmine Rosecult".

You see, in the absence of another target being mentioned, why would we assume that anybody else is being healed?

And at that.. I'm going to surrender. Kyle will do whatever Kyle wants to do.

I like you Kirkwb. You handled yourself well today. I just can't agree that this actually a problem. I suspect we'll go around and around on this.

That aside, I also wish you a very good time in the Beta.

[kirkwb]

Very Cool, a friendly debate is so much more fulfilling.

I do have to make one last point, though (part of the roundy - round) and bear with with me, the following sentence is not what you wrote, but I'm going to see if I can make a point

"Paradox removes shirt"

Has the same structure as:

"Fighter heals 1 damage"

They both have a subject, Paradox and Fighter.

They both have a predicate, "removes shirt," and, "heals 1 damage." With the respective verbs being, "removes," and, "heals."

But you didn't write, "Paradox removes shirt," you wrote, "Paradox removes his shirt."

Why?

Why include, "his"?

Was it because you felt the need to say whose shirt he removed?

I think a player needs to know whose damage bad Wolf is healing

Anyway, thank you for embracing the spirit of the debate, we could go on with this forever but I too will wish you the best in enjoying Beta. Stick with it, I think TCGs can be a fun ride.

[Shadow Era]

Sooooo..... "Bad Wolf regenerates 1 health at the start of your turn" .... ???

I think a better example to illustrate the problem would be "Priest heals 1 damage each turn". Ahhhh, now it's not clear whose damage is being healed, right? Because you instinctively know that priests can heal other units.

Maybe for each card we can have a vote for the best wording

[kirothak]

"Bad Wolf regenerates 1 health at the start of your turn"

That is 100% clear IMO, the term regeneration implies very clearly that the healing is done to himself while still sounding good. sounds much better then "heals himself for 1 health" or "heals himself from 1 damage"

and it lends itself well to the theme of the Wulven class.

though perhaps "At the start of your turn Bad Wolf regenerates 1 health" would be better, though frankly either sounds great to me. this wording gets my vote!

[kaboom132]

Sooooo..... "Bad Wolf regenerates 1 health at the start of your turn" .... ???

I think a better example to illustrate the problem would be "Priest heals 1 damage each turn". Ahhhh, now it's not clear whose damage is being healed, right? Because you instinctively know that priests can heal other units.

Maybe for each card we can have a vote for the best wording

Perfectly put!

[Paradox]

Well I'm glad I suggested it then.

And I realize that sounds like a really self-serving comment, but I'm not trying to stroke my own ego. If people want to think that, then they're going to. Its just that I do feel guilty about the protracted debate between Kirkwb and I. It went on for too long.. but throughout we were both looking to improve the game.

But I thank Kyle for considering using the term regeneration and implementing it.