The Book of Dreadgul Raiders

[TREX]

Originally Posted by superfrog

Well the bonding was originally/mostly intended for Valguard. Hence wild humans. But adding giants made it a bit more interesting. I'm sure giant and wild human bonding would have been fine, but the wording is less clean, and less like what the original designers would have put out.

Who is there to talk to about either fixing the wording or allowing the other two giants to get in on the bonding? My group has been playing it the other way for as long as these guys have been out and they don't usually win. In other words, We've play tested at least 40 games with these guys over the years using nothing but frost giants and shurrak without it coming up as imbalanced.

[superfrog]

The C3V doesn't take requests to change its cards after release.

[Kinseth]

WILD is in the name of the power, It feels clear to me.

[ollie]

Like Leaf_It suggests, probably worth adding an R&C to the first post so it's clear when someone checks the book for it.

[TREX]

Originally Posted by superfrog

The C3V doesn't take requests to change its cards after release.

It is what it is then. After discussion, I see the intent of the card. But the text is very open to interpretation. It does seem funny that the card wont under any circumstances be changed even under a small clarification of text to better portray what the card is after. Even though it does not affect the game play or structure of the card. You guys realize that even legitimate companies have errata updates, even though this one would just clarify the card better.

[ollie]

I think superfrog is overstating it. I don't see why we wouldn't take requests to change cards. It's just that it's very unlikely to be granted. In this case, I can't imagine we'd change the intent and I think an R&C is sufficient for the wording.

[superfrog]

OP updated with a clarification. For some reason I missed that this was all in discussion of some confusion at the tournament. Sorry for being a bit abrasive.

[bmon]

I agree that this one was poorly worded. I feel it isnt clear on the card. I experienced confusion around it as well and had to seek out an answer. Whether C3V implements errata changes is their call. I see the arguments both ways, but this was a rare misstep in editing.

[Sherman Davies]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

WILD is in the name of the power, It feels clear to me.

Exactly. When in need of clarity, sometimes the name of a power is evidence for how it works. Double Attack's wording implies infinite attacks, but the name (plus common sense) obviously indicates what the original designers intended.

Speaking of common sense, I think the wording of Wild Strategic Bonding is pretty clear from a colloquial English perspective. For example, if I saw a hit and run incident on a street and the fleeing car was red, but I was unsure if it was a Honda or Toyota, I would describe it to the cops as "a red Honda or Toyota." The vast majority of fluent English listeners would understand that to mean that I saw a red car that was either a Honda or Toyota, not that I saw a red Honda or a Toyota of unknown color.

[bmon]

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies

Exactly. When in need of clarity, sometimes the name of a power is evidence for how it works. Double Attack's wording implies infinite attacks, but the name (plus common sense) obviously indicates what the original designers intended.

Speaking of common sense, I think the wording of Wild Strategic Bonding is pretty clear from a colloquial English perspective. For example, if I saw a hit and run incident on a street and the fleeing car was red, but I was unsure if it was a Honda or Toyota, I would describe it to the cops as "a red Honda or Toyota." The vast majority of fluent English listeners would understand that to mean that I saw a red car that was either a Honda or Toyota, not that I saw a red Honda or a Toyota of unknown color.

I agree with your example and get what you're saying, but this one actually goes a little bit further. This card calls out a "wild human or giant hero". The added noun makes it even less clear which words are nouns and which are adjectives.

The worst part of the wording in relation to this card is that each side of the "or" clause doesn't necessarily need to be related like it does in your car example. If you said you saw a red Honda or Toyota truck, we know that both sides of the "or" clause are intrinsically related. If you asked us to guess what the first car you owned was and tell us it was either a red Honda or Toyota truck. I think now it leaves room for interpretation. Red Honda? Toyota truck?

Despite my own confusion on it, I may have actually ended up interpretting this card correctly on my own (don't remember), but I'm speaking up because I do think the wording on this card left things open for interpretation, something a card shouldn't do (where possible). It should be explicit and ideally shouldn't require an R&C. It just seems like cutting out a couple extra words was of little benefit compared to improved clarity a couple more words would have provided.

[TREX]

Originally Posted by bmon

I agree with your example and get what you're saying, but this one actually goes a little bit further. This card calls out a "wild human or giant hero". The added noun makes it even less clear which words are nouns and which are adjectives.

The worst part of the wording in relation to this card is that each side of the "or" clause doesn't necessarily need to be related like it does in your car example. If you said you saw a red Honda or Toyota truck, we know that both sides of the "or" clause are intrinsically related. If you asked us to guess what the first car you owned was and tell us it was either a red Honda or Toyota truck. I think now it leaves room for interpretation. Red Honda? Toyota truck?

Despite my own confusion on it, I may have actually ended up interpretting this card correctly on my own (don't remember), but I'm speaking up because I do think the wording on this card left things open for interpretation, something a card shouldn't do (where possible). It should be explicit and ideally shouldn't require an R&C. It just seems like cutting out a couple extra words was of little benefit compared to improved clarity a couple more words would have provided.

I agree, and I'll add this is constructive in its criticism, and just because the ability name states "wild", its much better to just state it in the power text. To use a smug attitude and say this is just common sense is a bit rude. The people commenting on this card are fans of the card and the project, people that support your project. I'm done commenting on it because bmon said it quite nicely and I'm starting to lose interest in this whole bit anyway. Do you know how much fun my brother would have had in his first tournament had he have to sit out because of this "common sense" kind of thing after our fairly decent drive on a Saturday. Frankly, It turns me off to the whole scene.

[lefton4ya]

It should be more clear, but I am OK with card as if - I just deal with it, as long as there is the FAQ in the OP, which there is.
On a related note, Pel the Hill Giant is a new C3V figure that bonds with them (Book arriving hopefully soon). Also, for those wishing they can use more giants with them, I made a Competitive Unit Alter for Frost Giant of Morh that changes it to Wild (among other things) so it bonds with the Dreadgul Raiders.