For whatever reason this wording gave me pause. I keep going back and forth in my mind as to whether or not the underlined section's saying:

1) "All other characters that RagSurt can draw a line of fire to are dealt..."

2) "Any other (single) character RagSurt can draw a line of fire to is dealt..."

I think a part of my confusion lies in the fact that it says "character" (singular), and the word "any;" does this give him an option as to which possible characters may be damaged? But it doesn't feel like that should be enough to throw me...

I dunno; am I the only one that this feels nebulous to?

The word 'any' can be used as either an adverb, adjective or a pronoun. In this sense it is an adjective which is used to refer to one or a number of characters, no matter how many.

If it was the game designer's intention to target one figure only, the word 'any' should be replaced with 'a'. But then again, we know that the game designers are 'wizkids' when it comes to the English language.

The way it is currently worded allows Surtur to deal 1 unavoidable damage to any and all characters in his line of fire.

However, the sentence doesn't make much sense as it is composed. The way it is worded, it literally means 'any figure other than Surtur'. The wording should be, based on the intention of the game designer, "A character Raganarok Surtur can draw..." for a single character. Or for plural characters, "Any characters Ragnarok Surtur can draw..."

The term 'other' infers a figure different, or set apart, from himself (Surtur).

Actually, it would probably say "a single" instead of just "a" as just "a" in this game rarely (if ever) means a single figure.

True, but either way would be proper English. But I agree, that it most likely would be "a single".

I think anyone creating rules for a game should have an English degree. If I was employing someone to create a rules book and they didn't have a degree in English listed on their resumé, they wouldn't even get an interview.

it´s cost effective to have illiterate monkeys

It was the best of times. It was the blurst of times.

And the designers no doubt felt the "other" was necessary, otherwise Surtur would be burning himself every time he uses the power. A figure can draw line of fire to itself, unless it's in Stealth, so without the other, he'd be doing himself damage every time he used it as well. Perhaps a touch clumsy, but the other needs to be there.

I wouldn't agree with that, I think there are many that are good with the English language that don't have degrees. I would definitely test them with a couple of examples (as seen in the original post as an example)

it's - its is the possessive

I think they wrote 'any other character' to mean 'all characters other than this one' because, if they said 'all characters Ragnarok Surtur can draw a line of fire to are dealt 1 unavoidable damage' this would mean he would damage himself as well (and yes, this would be correct, to the joy and tittering of all the weasel kings out there)

Not to mention that "English" is not simply a degree in grammar. In fact, some of the most amazing scholars I know have terrible grammar. An English degrees could mean an emphasis in Literature, Composition, rhetoric...none of which really focus on grammar in a strict sense.

It's not grammar expertise that is needed, simply a consistently applied terminology for their mechanics that is thought out ahead of time and then applied throughout the games life...

corrected!

Just remove 'other' and add 'opposing'. The way it is worded now all figures, friendly and opposing, take 1 click of damage.

I know this isn't the game designer's intention, but that is the way it is composed.

coffe, right out the nose.

as I clean myself up, would Ragnarok Surtur have the option of targeting his own figs or is he forced to hit them also?

boo: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Harpua again.

I've got a B.S. in English.


(no joke)

Actually, since we have no idea, it could be meant to target friendly figs as a means of "balance".