I think that some of the "you"s above might have been directed at me. So I want to lay out a couple things before continuing the discussion now that we have a dedicated thread.
First of all, in no way did I mean to imply that GtG didn’t put a priority on getting things right, or that Handelabra didn’t do their due diligence in implementing the card game, or that the playtesters were lax in returning necessary feedback to the game designers. If I came across as meaning those things, I would like to apologize. The vast universe of things this game gets emphatically right dwarfs the tiny portion of things it could do better.
Second, there are several reasons why I find this discussion interesting and valuable. A big one is that I’m interested in the game design process, and might like to pitch a design or two one day. Making sure that rules and materials work for the largest set of people possible is absolutely something I would want to know more about! Another reason, a way more long-shot sort of reason, is that as I love this game so much I’d be happy if the discussion helped out the GtG guys in some way, even if it’s as small as raising an issue in their minds for the future.
So anyway, while I don’t know how a potential “bug” in the physical game could be addressed other than a revised 3rd edition, (1) I’m not going to hold out for that happening, (2) I’m going to keep playing, enjoying, and being passionate about Sentinels of the Multiverse, and (3) I’m going to keep participating in discussions about how this game could potentially be better. I do apologize again if I implied any negativity toward the game designers, playtesters, or forum participants.
Now, then! I understand Christopher favored ambiguous wording in the past, so that players could come to their own conclusions about what was most thematic or sensible. That runs a bit counter to my own inclination, which is to write explicit and specific instructions to try to eliminate all ambiguous wording. I do think that is possible to do. Though difficult, I wouldn’t dismiss the idea of writing precise text.
One example might be a card like Flame Barrier. I suggest two possible alternatives.
[quote=““one idea””]
When a target deals damage to Ra, if it was the first time that target dealt damage to Ra this turn, Ra deals that target 2 fire damage.
[/quote]
[quote=““another idea””]
When a target deals damage to Ra, if it was the first time Ra took damage this turn, Ra deals that target 2 fire damage.
[/quote]
We now know that the first wording is how Flame Barrier, Combat Stance, etc work, while the second is how Provocateur Tarnis works. What do you think? Did I get rid of the ambiguity successfully?