The text transcription has two subtle differences from the card (and the army card has a grammar issue, which I'll list afterwards):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astroking112
WOUNDED RAGE 13
When Kozil receives one or more wounds from a normal or special attack but is not destroyed, you must immediately roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 13 or higher, inflict one 1 wound on a figure adjacent to Kozil, if possible.
CRUSHING GRASP 15
After attacking with Kozil, if Kozil attacked a small or medium figure and rolled at least one 1 skull and Kozil is still adjacent to that figure, you may roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, inflict 2 wounds on that figure.
|
On the grammar problem, I checked to see if there was an earlier precedent for this wording template, or even any cases where this kind of incorrect grammar was "canonized" by Hasbro, but I could not find any. So as far as I know, this is the first and only incidence of this issue and thus (presumably) easy to correct. (Although I recognize that asking the committee to revisit a card and agree on a corrected grammar is not exactly
easy for them.
)
The grammar problem is two-fold: in the three-part condition for Crushing Grasp, there are double "ands" and non-parallel construction. The double conjunction
could be grammatically acceptable if the construction had been parallel, but even then it is pretty uncommon and generally only used for literary emphasis.
Anyway, when a subject (in this case "Kozil") is repeated across multiple conjunctive phrases, proper English requires that subject to be written either
once (at the beginning) or
every time. On this card, "Kozil" is repeated for the first and last phrases but not the middle one. So either the third one needs to be deleted, or the middle one needs to be filled in. Or, if two Kozils are strongly desired here, then the three-phrase conjunction can be split into a two-phrase one with a follow-up. And in any case, the commas then need to be cleaned up.
So there are at least three ways this sentence could be corrected:
- if Kozil attacked a small or medium figure, and rolled at least 1 skull, and Kozil is still adjacent to that figure,
- if Kozil attacked a small or medium figure, and Kozil rolled at least 1 skull, and Kozil is still adjacent to that figure,
- if Kozil attacked a small or medium figure and rolled at least 1 skull, and if Kozil is still adjacent to that figure,
I recommend #1 for its brevity and ease of reading, but the committee may have reasons to go a different way. As long as the result communicates the intended gameplay and is grammatically sound, I think we would all be happy.