Lol, k.

Smiley or not maybe angry guy doesn't have to mansplain and, frankly, come across as a "jerk" as you so nicely put it when answering my post that I disagreed with him. Ya know, cuz maybe he "went out of his way" to answer me so pedantically.

I said nothing at the time. I then came back with a lighthearted counter to his previous post as I waited to see the ruling. You have a nice day too.

Maybe everyone should think about THEIR attitudes and the way they sound when they answer.



It's a freaking game board, nobody deserves to be berated in any way for asking a question or disagreeing with an interpretation.

And yet, you insisted on doing just that. You were pretty clearly trying to instigate a response, and I'm more than happy to oblige. Calling someone pedantic and demanding an apology is hardly a "lighthearted counter". If you act like a jerk, expect to get called out on it.

And if you think explaining the rules is being pedantic and "mansplaining", then you probably don't want to be involved in a forum that specifically deals with explaining the rules. Feel free to see your way out.

Okay. Thanks

Let’s say that you are correct in all points. If so, you had to know that your comment, smiley and all, would not go over well

As written, it should work the other way as LJ covered... but they made an intent ruling that's not based on the rules... again...


Except that he was exactly right in your quote... "At best, I expect we'll end up getting an intent ruling without any actual rules support..."

From an English Language perspective, it's seems ambiguous. Could go either way with a casual read. The second use of "adjacent" gives away the intent.

"Choose an adjacent character. If the chosen character is adjacent, until your next turn Hope Summers can use the standard powers that character can use. (Her powers can change if the chosen character's dial is clicked.)"

If they wanted it unambiguous, the phrase "If the chosen character is adjacent" could have followed the main clause of the sentence. But adjective phrases (which is what that is) are funny because they can float around in a sentence*. They could also have used "while" instead of "if."

Look at it this way:

Adv. phrase: [If the chosen character is adjacent]
Adv. phrase: [until your next turn]

Main clause: [Hope Summers can use the standard powers that character can use.]

Those first two, in English grammar, can come in either order.

The adverbial phrases in this case are modifying "can use." The ambiguous, possible alternative reading has the first [If...] modifying the second [until...]

But that reading makes no sense, because you've already picked an adjacent character.

They should have swapped the order of the clauses for clarity, but they haven't overridden the rules on the ruling. Just clarified.


* "Happily, I walked down the street. I walked down the street happily. I happily walked down the street."



I paid thousands for my English Degree, and it's pretty worthless except in cases like this.

This is essentially how I read/interpreted it during our month two when I played her. The 'if' clause/condition is part of the activated effect, not a requirement to activate it, though the sentence order is awkward. I'm not grammatically inclined enough to state the true accuracy of my understanding, but that is how it felt natural for me to interpret it. I understand there are triggers where there is a condition for activation/application that look similar to this, I'm not sure what, if anything, is different at the moment though, but something felt different. I think this goes back to not everything is a burst or Aura, which admittedly Wizkids even says are not game terms so they don't have clear definitions.

So follow up question. What happens if she begins using a power like Running Shot, but becomes un-adjacent? Does she get to resolve the action and make an attack?

Once an action is given it must resolve.