The rules explicitly state that scope of a card's effect is presumed to be local unless otherwise specified, but I think this is unintuitive when coupled with the example text "all gaia". The article later propses that scope changes when a card explicity includes the word "kingdom".
What if instead, the word 'all' naturally applies to both fronts, were as the addition (even if in combination with the word 'all') of the words like 'close' and 'nearby' are used to denote local scope. I think card text becomes more natural this way, and it might provide to be less confusing.
Local Scope (current front):
"All nearby Gaian..."
"Any Adjacent creatures..."
"... in this front ... "
Global Scope (Kingdom)
"All artifacts..."
Remote Scope (opposite front):
"Distant Gainan..."
scope ambiguity (local vs kingdom)
Re: scope ambiguity (local vs kingdom)
This is confusing. But it's more of a game logic subject than wording alone. Any words we would use - we will have to define all clearly somewhere in docs. Explain what "nearby" or "adjacent" exactly means in terms of table layout. So we can as well say with big letters that a creature can affect only other creatures in a given front, unless explicitly stated otherwise. This will also make some things easier for alternative rulesets and table layouts hopefully.
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
Re: scope ambiguity (local vs kingdom)
aspidites:
I've edited them a little: http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wiki/ind ... _locations
..but the edit isn't a good reply to what you suggest.
You might have a point, but I'm not sure really, and would love to investigate this in closer detail with a couple of card examples.
My intention is to create a wording that sees the default state of the game as one which is within a front. I want it to be the natural state that whatever happens, it happens locally. If so, we should probably avoid creating a system where we need to be explicit about this on every card where it is so, since that seems needless(?)
Instead, I think it should be inverted: The exceptions should be explicitly mentioned on the cards that create them. The exceptions are whatever is somehow global, either global in the sense of both your fronts, or global in the sense of the whole table, involving every other players kingdom as well (maybe universal is a better word for it?).
Please come with a couple (3-5) examples of cards that we have in Cardscape or invent new ones for the sake of this discusson, and let's see what we can make of them. Maybe all this would become more obvious to all of us when looking at "real" examples?
Edit: I'd avoide terminology like "opposite" since it makes the cards hard to use when later on trying to play a 3 player game etc.
I've edited them a little: http://chaosrealm.net/wtactics/wiki/ind ... _locations
..but the edit isn't a good reply to what you suggest.
You might have a point, but I'm not sure really, and would love to investigate this in closer detail with a couple of card examples.
My intention is to create a wording that sees the default state of the game as one which is within a front. I want it to be the natural state that whatever happens, it happens locally. If so, we should probably avoid creating a system where we need to be explicit about this on every card where it is so, since that seems needless(?)
Instead, I think it should be inverted: The exceptions should be explicitly mentioned on the cards that create them. The exceptions are whatever is somehow global, either global in the sense of both your fronts, or global in the sense of the whole table, involving every other players kingdom as well (maybe universal is a better word for it?).
Please come with a couple (3-5) examples of cards that we have in Cardscape or invent new ones for the sake of this discusson, and let's see what we can make of them. Maybe all this would become more obvious to all of us when looking at "real" examples?
Edit: I'd avoide terminology like "opposite" since it makes the cards hard to use when later on trying to play a 3 player game etc.
Re: scope ambiguity (local vs kingdom)
Totally forgot about this thread, sorry. I have yet to check the revision or doublecheck card scape (might do that this coming Sunday or there-abouts).
I gave word examples, but I think my concern isn't so much with careful word selection for the sake of dictating scope, but that it should feel natural to assume the correct scope and not be confused by the wording of a card.
Once I've reviewed the updated wiki article and the cards currently in cardscape, I'll re-evaluate and report if I think that in practice this is an issue at all.
Edit: I think the omission of words like opposite helpped a lot. I just need to look at current cards and give feed back for those.
I gave word examples, but I think my concern isn't so much with careful word selection for the sake of dictating scope, but that it should feel natural to assume the correct scope and not be confused by the wording of a card.
Once I've reviewed the updated wiki article and the cards currently in cardscape, I'll re-evaluate and report if I think that in practice this is an issue at all.
Edit: I think the omission of words like opposite helpped a lot. I just need to look at current cards and give feed back for those.