Post/common effect - convention

[Konrad Klar]

@ Konrad: The point is simply that the use of paragraphs is arbitrary. There is no reason to assume deliberate function in one instance of paragraphing when most if not all others show no sign of such.

Do you agree that some cards with alternative uses have a sentence common to both alternative and primary effect?
If so, how the sentence is usually expressed/presented?
What is a reason of denying that such expression/presentation serves such function? Fact that it (line break/indent) is also used in cards that does not have alternative use? Fact that two cards that have alternative uses and apparently have common sentence do not use such expression/presentation?

I have seen malformed ZIP, EPUB, PNG files? Do they prove that ZIP, EPUB, PNG standards do not exist?
If not a line break/indent what indicates that last sentence is common to both alternative and primary effect? Impression?

Children use grammar rules before they go to school, not knowing that they use grammar rules and even not knowing that there is such thing as grammar. Some people break grammar rules, knowing or not knowing that grammar rules exist.

For me it looks like ICE, even if not deliberately, was using some convention albeit not in 100% systematically.
The whole topic may be leaved as is (or as it was, unnoticed, not disputed), or it may be base for figuring out what convention of expressing post/common effect is used, texts of which cards are deviation from the convention (and should be corrected), and/or which cards actually do not use common effect despite how they look.

[meaglyn]

@ Konrad: The point is simply that the use of paragraphs is arbitrary. There is no reason to assume deliberate function in one instance of paragraphing when most if not all others show no sign of such.

Hhm... that is not what I was saying. I think the use of paragraphs (and by that I mean newline + indent) is deliberate. It provides the clarity needed. The lack of paragraphs in the one card (echoes) does not change that. It's just 3 sentences. It could just as easily have been 3 paragraphs but may have just looked odd that way, I don't know. Deeper shadows it does matter, the paragraph make the corruption check apply to the alternate effect only. And since there is no break in Echoes, each sentence has to be treated as equal so the 3rd applies to both effects.

I think it's pretty clear. But since we are not re-printing the cards I don't think we need to worry about making Echoes into 3 paragraphs.

[Konrad Klar]

And since there is no break in Echoes, each sentence has to be treated as equal so the 3rd applies to both effects.

Ech... then 3rd sentence is not treated in the same way as 1st and 2nd.

Or 1st sentence belongs to primary effect, 2nd and 3rd sentence belong to alternative effect.
Only obvious separator of the two effects (independent from formatting of text) is a presence of word "alternatively" in 1st sentence that belongs to alternative effect.

Basis of any attempt of errata is a an assumption that there was/is some intent and a current state (e.g. text, formatting) does not reflect the intent.
It is always matter of reconstruction. It may involve comparing some texts with other texts and deciding where is regularity and where is oddity.
And sometimes there is no hard evidence.

[Bandobras Took]

Children use grammar rules before they go to school, not knowing that they use grammar rules and even not knowing that there is such thing as grammar. Some people break grammar rules, knowing or not knowing that grammar rules exist.

For me it looks like ICE, even if not deliberately, was using some convention albeit not in 100% systematically.
The whole topic may be leaved as is (or as it was, unnoticed, not disputed), or it may be base for figuring out what convention of expressing post/common effect is used, texts of which cards are deviation from the convention (and should be corrected), and/or which cards actually do not use common effect despite how they look.

Children also break many grammar rules. And in this respect, ICE were children when making a CCG. English is a mess of contradictions and exceptions anyway, and the necessary precision in both terminology *and* formatting is manifestly lacking in the layout/text of the cards.

[meaglyn]

Ech... then 3rd sentence is not treated in the same way as 1st and 2nd.

It _is_ treated the same. First sentence applies to playing the card. 2nd sentence applies to playing the card. 3rd sentence applies to playing the card. Exactly the same.

The fact that the 2nd one say "Alternatively" means you can't do both the 1st and 2nd. But doesn't change the 3rd.

Or 1st sentence belongs to primary effect, 2nd and 3rd sentence belong to alternative effect.

No... not without a paragraph to group the 2nd and 3rd differently from the 1st. w/o the paragraph they are all at the same "level". There is no reason to read the 3rd as only applying to the 2nd. That makes no sense.

Only obvious separator of the two effects (independent from formatting of text) is a presence of word "alternatively" in 1st sentence that belongs to alternative effect.

Right, which is why the 3rd sentence applies to both effects. It would need to be a paragraph (consisting 2nd and 3rd sentences only) like Deeper shadows, or joined to the 2nd with ":" or "and" to apply only to the 2nd effect.

I agree that it would probably have been better to have the "Remove this card from the game." as its own paragraph (like all (most?) of the "Cannot be duplicated"s) but since we are not reprinting ICE cards...

[Konrad Klar]

Children also break many grammar rules.

"Some people" may include "some children".

And in this respect, ICE were children when making a CCG. English is a mess of contradictions and exceptions anyway, and the necessary precision in both terminology *and* formatting is manifestly lacking in the layout/text of the cards.

I agree and I am not condemning them. It does not mean that there is no chance for improving the situation.

No... not without a paragraph to group the 2nd and 3rd differently from the 1st. w/o the paragraph they are all at the same "level". There is no reason to read the 3rd as only applying to the 2nd. That makes no sense.

In short: a card with two uses that is only removed from game in result of alternative use is not possible?
What should be a text of such card and how it would be formatted?

If e.g. primary use should be in one paragraph and alternative use in other paragraph, then Echoes of the Song is not properly formatted. Does it automatically mean the its last sentence applies to both uses?

[meaglyn]

In short: a card with two uses that is only removed from game in result of alternative use is not possible?
What should be a text of such card and how it would be formatted?

As I've said before, it would be formatted exactly like Deeper shadow. There is one paragraph for the first effect and second for the alternate which includes the corruption check.

If e.g. primary use should be in one paragraph and alternative use in other paragraph, then Echoes of the Song is not properly formatted. Does it automatically mean the its last sentence applies to both uses?

I did not say the primary should be in one paragraph and the secondary in a second in all cases. Only in cases where it matters i.e. where the secondary effect is multiple sentences. See Deeper shadows again.

Echoes of the song is only not properly formatted if you think the remove from the game should only apply to the alternate effect. I do not think that is the case so I don't see Echoes as being improperly formatted.

I did say that it would probably have been better (clearer) to have at least the Remove from the game part in a separate paragraph at the end. But as it is I don't think it is in anyway broken.

And yes, as I think I've said before, 3 sentences in one paragraph in no way makes the 3rd dependent on the 2nd (without additional words or punctuation).

[Konrad Klar]

And yes, as I think I've said before, 3 sentences in one paragraph in no way makes the 3rd dependent on the 2nd (without additional words or punctuation).

Depending on convention, if used consistently. If convention would be used consistently and the convention would be "post/common effect is described in last sentence included in separate paragraph", then there would be no room for interpretation, but only: "Remove this card from the game." applies only to alternative effect.

Great Secrets Buried There has two alternative uses and no common/post effect. Despite its dense text, each of the two uses is described in separate paragraph. Relatively short text of Strange Rations is included in one paragraph.

Reason of ambiguity is an inconsistently used convention.
My stance is that if not convention then players (readers/interpreters) are left with their guess and taste ("this card could be removed from game only after second use, but it looks somewhat untypical", "this particular magic card could cause a corruption check only if played for alternative effect, but it is different than in case of other magic cards with alternative uses").

[meaglyn]

I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't see any ambiguity, sorry.

[Konrad Klar]

I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't see any ambiguity, sorry.

Sorry, but this tread is also read by other users.

"this particular magic card could cause a corruption check only if played for alternative effect, but it is different than in case of other magic cards with alternative uses"

But the texts of the other magic cards are formatted differently.
But texts of some cards with alternative uses and without sentence that could be read in any way as common/post effect are not formatted at all while texts of some other have primary and alternative described in separate paragraphs.

So here is the ambiguity I see.
Maybe the last sentence that could be but not necessarily is the common/post effect, is actually common/post effect but the intent has not been expressed, because author forgot to format the text, or the last sentence belongs to alternative use only.
In both cases at least primary and alternative effect should be written each in separate paragraph.
Lack of formatting obfuscates that or other intent.