Page 1 of 1
Wording interpretation of cards
Posted: 03 June 2025, 00:16
by Cryohawk
I've run into a situation with the new WFM "The Hunger" card. The Hunger card Rare States "discard all other cards in play "OR" in reserve." When the card is played it discards both, all cards in play AND in reserve. The card states "OR" not "AND" not "BOTH". when submitted a bug to BGA was told "the card is worded like that but means both".
Now would that be the same thing for all other cards with the same "or" wording? Am I missing something with the rules?
Banishing Gate....discard character OR Permanent....should be allowed to discard both then
BOOM...discard character OR Permanent...should be allowed to discard both then
Field reinforcements....if expedition is behind or tied....shouldn't it have to be both behind AND tied
by the above logic of the Hunger doesn't the above examples also hold true then??????
Re: Wording interpretation of cards
Posted: 03 June 2025, 17:01
by Tisaac
Cryohawk wrote: ↑03 June 2025, 00:16
I've run into a situation with the new WFM "The Hunger" card. The Hunger card Rare States "discard all other cards in play "OR" in reserve." When the card is played it discards both, all cards in play AND in reserve. The card states "OR" not "AND" not "BOTH". when submitted a bug to BGA was told "the card is worded like that but means both".
Now would that be the same thing for all other cards with the same "or" wording? Am I missing something with the rules?
Banishing Gate....discard character OR Permanent....should be allowed to discard both then
BOOM...discard character OR Permanent...should be allowed to discard both then
Field reinforcements....if expedition is behind or tied....shouldn't it have to be both behind AND tied
by the above logic of the Hunger doesn't the above examples also hold true then??????
I am not sure to follow you here, the first sentence is parsed "discard all other cards (in play or in reserve)". Your interpretation would be worded "discard all other cards in play or discard all other cards in reserve", or would use "either...or...". This is a case where "or" also means "and" (it's also true in french).
The other cases are clearly meant to be exclusive or.
Re: Wording interpretation of cards
Posted: 18 June 2025, 02:06
by Ajordat
Just to comment on the comparison with the other cards, the important word there is "all". Since The Hunger expands its targets to all valid targets, any card that matches one of the conditions (in play or in reserve) is removed.
As per Banishing Gates or Boom, you're right, you are indeed allowed to target both: a character or a permanent. However, those cards only allow one target, not many like The Hunger.
Also, if the word "and" was used, neither of those cards would have any effect since all those conditions (as of now) are mutually exclusive hence no valid targets would ever be found. If a card is in play, it cannot be in reserve; it a card is a character, it cannot be a permanent; if an expedition is behind, it cannot be tied.
Re: Wording interpretation of cards
Posted: 01 July 2025, 13:09
by Zeyben
Cryohawk wrote: ↑03 June 2025, 00:16
I've run into a situation with the new WFM "The Hunger" card. The Hunger card Rare States "discard all other cards in play "OR" in reserve." When the card is played it discards both, all cards in play AND in reserve. The card states "OR" not "AND" not "BOTH". when submitted a bug to BGA was told "the card is worded like that but means both".
Now would that be the same thing for all other cards with the same "or" wording? Am I missing something with the rules?
Banishing Gate....discard character OR Permanent....should be allowed to discard both then
BOOM...discard character OR Permanent...should be allowed to discard both then
Field reinforcements....if expedition is behind or tied....shouldn't it have to be both behind AND tied
by the above logic of the Hunger doesn't the above examples also hold true then??????
I dont know why, but the unique hunger says ''and'', maybe they noticed its confusing and worded badly too late or something.
Or am i missing something and the unqiue hunger has a different effect then the common and rare one ?
Re: Wording interpretation of cards
Posted: 05 July 2025, 04:55
by sliph1251
This is horrendous wording and in no way should "OR" mean "do both".
Finding out the unique says "AND" while the commons and rares say "OR" is even more infuriating and any defense that "OR" somehow means "do both" is undermined by this difference. Card needs to be errata'd/patched to match the wording.
If you were told to paint all other toys in the bin red OR blue, you would not do both. ... ... That is what AND is for.
If you were told to paint all other toys in the bin red AND blue, now you would do both.
Re: Wording interpretation of cards
Posted: 05 July 2025, 08:04
by Jellby
The fact is such wording is always ambiguous.
These two could effectively mean the same:
"Discard all other cards from play or Reserve". Take all cards one by one, is it in play or in reserve? If yes, discard it.
"Discard all other cards from play and Reserve". Take all cards from play and all cards from reserve. Discard them.
This is also a reasonable interpretation:
"Discard all other cards from play or Reserve". Choose one of "from play" and "reserve". Discard all cards there.
This probably does not make sense in this particular case, but could if the two groups were not exclusive:
"Discard all other cards from play and Reserve". Take all cards that are simultaneously in play and in reserve. Discard them.