Council of Elrond

I have just seen a DC card, that has a clunky wording (at least in my opinion). Where should I post/send the feedback?

well maybe post the card and see how it goes

I saw Link of Angainor, and think, that the last part is not optimal.

The wording I saw is:

"<tapsymbol>: Force opponent to reveal any unique hazard which creates an attack from his hand (or else his whole hand). Choose one of these cards: Opponent must either discard it or the prowess and body of its attacks are reduced by three this turn."

The "any" would usually imply "a card of that players choice", which would render the part "choose one of these cards" useless. If the intention is instead to show all hazards that creates an attack, it would be better to say either "any unique hazards" (plural) or "all unique hazards"

The optional revealing of the hand does not make much sense. If you want the opponent to show all unique hazard cards from his hand, and you trust that personto not withhold a card, then there also is no need to make the opponent reveal the hand when that opponent says that there is no such card available. If you do not trust the opponent with the scenario, that there is no card available to show, then there is no reason to trsut the opponent in general.

"Force opponent" will only work in 1vs1, but does not work very good in Multiplayer, as it does not say which opponent has to do this.

I would word it:

"<tapsymbol>: Target opponent revelas his hand. You may choose a unique hazard card which can create an attack. That opponent can choose to discard that card. If he does not, any attack created by this card has its prowess and body reduced by three until end of turn."

As I though, you do not get how the cards is supposed to work at all:

also it seems you are using an older version of the card, so empty your cache and refresh the site and then we can discuss the issues if you still fail to see what the card does, which I believe you do by your understanding above

also

I think that the text as written is ambiguous in the case where the opponent has 2 or more unique hazards that create an attack in hand.

Say the player has Gothmog and Rogrog in hand -- it seems, from the "any" language that he would only need to reveal Gothmog or Rogrog to satisfy the requirement of the Link. In which case, why would he ever choose to reveal both? And if only one hazard will ever be revealed, then why would the player controlling the Link ever be able to choose?

I was referring to the card that was posted on FB today, and that is the same as the one you posted here. At least the quoted text in my post is the same as in the picture of the card.

And the fact, that I obviously did not get what the card wants to do, just underlines my initial feedback.

Please, let me describe a fictional scenario and the questions I would have in that situation. I would be grateful, if you can answer my questions, so I see where I get it wrong.

I'm playing with three other players. I use the second ability of the Link.

1. Which opponent is "forced to reveal" a card? Can I choose one?
>> I would think so, because it's intuitive, but the card does not specify

2. My targeted opponent has in its hand 3 hazard cards, that can generate an attack. First is "Uvatha", second is a "Cave Drake" and third is "Siege". Which of these cards does my opponent have to reveal?
>> The word "any" implies, that my opponent only has to reveal one card of his choice. If that is the case, then the text "Choose one of these cards" doesn't make sense and could be left out (it would shorten the text)
>> If "any" in this case means all, the part about choosing makes sense, but then the word "any" is ambiguous / can be misunderstood.

3. My targeted opponent has no hazard cards in hand. Can he just say "I have no hazard cards that create attacks in hand" or does he have to reveal his hand?

the idea is to reveal all such hazards (i.e. unique and creating an attack). The any refers more to 'if any', might as well say 'all'.
Or in this case, "any hazards which create." Switch 2 esses around.
If that is still unclear to some, then we'll simply use 'all'.

thanks for the paying close attention, and for getting back to us. Feedback on stuff from the Northern Waste set is probably best in the Northern Waste thread

Ok, that makes sense. All would be better in that case.

But why the revealing of the hand only if there are no such hazards? If I trust my opponent to reveal all (instead of only a few), then I should be able to trust them also if they say they don't have any.

Well that is the way many other cards treat it, if you don't have any of said X, show hand to opponent to check it. But you have a point, one could still fool opponent by revealing only 1 (out of several).

Yes hand peeking is an additional strong effect of Link of Angainor. It was considered. But the item is quite difficult to obtain, and dangerous and difficult to tote around. Thus we found it balanced.

btw. please check versions on cardnum. The one you posted here is NOT the most up to date version. When I went to correct the card, turns out it was already changed (though still discovered a typo .

Neirgara wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:35 am I have just seen a DC card, that has a clunky wording (at least in my opinion). Where should I post/send the feedback?

Don't bother

Well... maybe if it was for NW/ML

CDavis7M wrote:
Don't bother

A rather unproductive attitude, care to elaborate?

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:10 pm Well that is the way many other cards treat it, if you don't have any of said X, show hand to opponent to check it. But you have a point, one could still fool opponent by revealing only 1 (out of several).

Yes hand peeking is an additional strong effect of Link of Angainor. It was considered. But the item is quite difficult to obtain, and dangerous and difficult to tote around. Thus we found it balanced.

btw. please check versions on cardnum. The one you posted here is NOT the most up to date version. When I went to correct the card, turns out it was already changed (though still discovered a typo .

Because of the difficulty to play that card I also do not think, that the peeking would be a problem. That's why I proposed to make the opponent reveal his or her hand everytime and not simply based on the availability of an appropriate hazard card.

I did not post the card, I simply quoted the one that was posted on FB recently. And since that was the same that Vastor posted here, I assumed that it was the actual version. Though looking at the cardnum version, the only difference to my quote is "hazards" instead of "hazard" (which solves the confusion about "any" to some degree but not the other feedback), so I still would have given a similar feedback.

But if I see something confusing again, I will make sure to take a look at cardnum first. If I'm confused about the wording or think it's suboptimal even then, is feedback still desired? And if yes, should I do it here again, or is there a better place for that?

Neirgara wrote:
If I'm confused about the wording or think it's suboptimal even then, is feedback still desired? And if yes, should I do it here again, or is there a better place for that?

Of course! This is a work in progress (for over 15 years now), and any help is appreciated.
meccg is a text based game with a high degree of simulated theme, so discussions about phrasing and terminology are a given. Those discussions started as soon as it was released 25 years ago, and DC will gladly continue the tradition

There is a Development section for suggestions, questions and remarks about general DC sets. You need to log in (and be granted permission). About First Folk, Necromancer, and Northern Waste/Legacy there are separate threads, as those are the sets we have been focusing on.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:32 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Don't bother

A rather unproductive attitude, care to elaborate?

----------

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:03 pm

Neirgara wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:35 am I have just seen a DC card, that has a clunky wording (at least in my opinion). Where should I post/send the feedback?

Don't bother

Well... maybe if it was for NW/ML

Seems unproductive to discuss outdated card texts that might never be in active development.
The card here actually is in ML. But the original poster actually recognized that only one interpretation of the card made sense. That also seems unproductive.