this card is just good all over

kinda alright in a zarathur deck, tho you'd need a fair few ork allies and I think I'd only take one if I could find the room.

think this is a good Nazdreg card 

Definitely seems like a solid Nazdreg card, especially since you can play it for cheap when combined with a Bigga is Better and/or Crushface

It can also ready warlords, which is great for tactical retreats, Zogwort triggers, or Hostile Acquisition triggers

Another way around Big Huge Chain Choppa too.  Lotta likes with this card.

edit: silly me, it's not "big", its huge!

There's a potential insane synergy with Gorzod's Kustomisation Station and a big mean Marine- or Guard Elite unit like the Predator (or the Conqueror in particular) for this guy I think..

There's a potential insane synergy with Gorzod's Kustomisation Station and a big mean Marine- or Guard Elite unit like the Predator (or the Conqueror in particular) for this guy I think..

Hm, not really I'm afraid. It can only ready Ork units, maybe you can get some really nasty value plays if you have a Salvaged Battlewagon but the cost of that thing is so huge that you would probably not be able to afford anything else unless you are absolutely dominating on command.

Hm, not really I'm afraid. It can only ready Ork units

True, but that's exactly the point - Gorzod's Kustomisation Station turns them into Ork units

Or you could replace your Kommandos with Standard Bearers, getting rid of the Ork unit requirement, and avoiding having to damage the readied unit.

Or you could replace your Kommandos with Standard Bearers, getting rid of the Ork unit requirement, and avoiding having to damage the readied unit.

And then switch to Nazdreg, of course, since Gorzod can't use Standard Bearers.

True, but that's exactly the point - Gorzod's Kustomisation Station turns them into Ork units

See folks this is why you shouldn't be on the internet when you ideally would be asleep instead. You make super silly mistakes and look like a fool for all to see. Good catch on me being stupid mate =).

And then switch to Nazdreg, of course, since Gorzod can't use Standard Bearers.

well.... yeah... fair point

And then switch to Nazdreg, of course, since Gorzod can't use Standard Bearers.

Where's the "Statement of Intent" FAQ that talks about this?

The rules on Gorzod's card are poorly written and can be read either way, but I know the rule writers get on this forum enough to 'let us know'. It's probably in the 'Rules Questions' thread somewhere, but let's pretend I'm too lazy to go read that a few dozen pages back...

Why is everyone on this kick today? Gorzod states "but cannot include other out of faction cards". How is that poorly written or open to interpretation?

I'm all for fully understanding cards and mechanics to their core meaning, but wordy rules lawyering is a pet peeve.

Because it doesn't say "You cannot include other out of faction cards."

It includes that phrase after a phrase that says you MAY do something.

That is, you "May do A but cannot do B."

By saying you MAY do something, it implies it is optional and applies to the whole sentence - that is, normally, I could not take those vehicles, but I MAY do it (but if I do, I cannot include other out of faction cards).

The "may" implies a choice that you might take or not take depending on your desired cards.

The inclusion of a comma in the sentence also helps to suggest an optional phrase dependent on the previous clause.

In contrast, a better way to have worded it to be totally unambiguous would have been, "You may take these vehicles. You cannot take any other out of faction cards."

Or even more simply: "You may not take any out of faction cards except SM vehicles and AM vehicles."

Nobody is on a "kick".

Nobody is trying to cheat or "get one over on you" or worthy of your "pet peeving". I was just asking where the reference was for it because it was ambiguous. When a new player asked me the question and based their decision entirely on their understanding of conversational English, I did not criticize them for not learning the language like the other players nor did I claim they were worthy of my pet peeving or accuse them of 'rules lawyering' or cheating.

I just explained it. I also wanted to get some other rules reference from a designer on here so I could back myself up instead of just saying, "CUZ I SAID SO." That's why I asked.

Sure, sure.

I'm just saying: people asking legitimate questions when the text allows two valid interpretations doesn't mean somebody is trying to cheat you.

And to some people, it seemed obvious the other way.

When the question was posed to me, I intuited what the intent was even though the text wasn't clear. But I had the experience of playing and reading these forums. I didn't think anybody was trying to "rules lawyer" or be rude to me. It was a legitimate question, asked in a friendly manner (not even during a game, but beforehand when opening the pack).

Especially the addition of the comma makes the second part stand alone and hold true whatever you decide for the first part. Logic prevails here.

Especially the addition of the comma makes the second part stand alone and hold true whatever you decide for the first part. Logic prevails here.

That's exactly the opposite of how grammar and logic use commas. If you want to use a complete logical sentence, you write out a complete thought and end it with a period. Commas imply a causal relationship or some interaction between the sentences. Linking words like and or but or or specifically compare two separate discrete thoughts and ideas together against each other (i.e. "I want peas and crackers," means something entirely different than, "I want peas or crackers." "I want peas. Crackers are better," suggests one meaning, whereas, "I want peas, but crackers are better," implies an entirely separate relationship.)

Many words (in English) imply relationships and you can construct grammatically correct but contextually unclear sentences. Sentences often imply or contain hidden 'words' in them without you having to say those words because of implications (i.e. if your mate at the shooting range says, "Shoot the gun," they clearly intend to say, "Shoot the gun <at the target>," and not, "Shoot the gun <at the child>."

That's why some grammar is important. Sentences contain hidden information depending on how different people are familiar with words, so you want to contain enough words to eliminate those alternative interpretations. Use jargon! Use extra sentences! Just make sure not to accidentally leave people who read your works unclear rules.

For me, and I am no native english speaker, it is pretty obvious.

Don't interpret too much into the rules.

"You may do A but cannot do B." is not the same as "You may do A but then you cannot do B."

The first statement informs you of 1 thing you can choose to do and one thing you cannot do.

The second statement informs you of 1 thing you can choose to do and one thing you cannot do if you choose to do so.

I also fail to see how the wording is unclear in any way on Gorzod.

@TheNick:

I think the confusion is simply whether or not the text on Gorzod (and Starblaze for that matter) is optional or mandatory. That is, is it possible to build a Gorzod deck under the standard deckbuilding rules instead of the modified deckbuilding rules represented by his text.

Conventional wisdom would be, "no, you can't." The text is effectively a constant ability (confused by the fact that it applies to deckbuilding rather than in-play actions, I know) without conditions. As such, it applies whenever you use the warlord, and there are no conditions in which the text would not apply.

You can can always choose not to put in AM or SM Vehicles, but if you do, it doesn't "turn off" the "cannot include other out of faction cards" requirement. In order for it to work that way, his text would have to say something like, "You may include common Vehicle units from both the [AM] and [SM] factions. If you do, you cannot include other out of faction cards."

"You may do A but cannot do B." is not the same as "You may do A but then you cannot do B."

 

The first statement informs you of 1 thing you can choose to do and one thing you cannot do.

The second statement informs you of 1 thing you can choose to do and one thing you cannot do if you choose to do so.

 

I also fail to see how the wording is unclear in any way on Gorzod.

Ok. Calm the heck down. I'm not saying I don't understand or that I'm too retarded to get it.

I KNOW what the rule is intended to be.

However, I agree with the first proposition (the two different sentences are two different sentences. Duh.).

The issue is that the way the sentence is worded suggests the if/then relationship because that is how English speakers speak. You know what they mean because you've played this game for years and talk to the game creators occasionally.

If somebody just picked up the rule book  and looked at the card, they might assume differently using their decades of word-talking experience.

It's not unclear because you cannot get to your interpretation using the words as written. You can get to your interpretation using the words as written. It might even be the 'stronger interpretation' solely using the words as written.

However, you can also get to the other interpretation using the words as written and not be grammatically incorrect about it. The problem comes when somebody says, "Hey, does this make sense?" and then reads the words and concludes that it does, even if that's the incorrect/less correct way of doing it.

So yeah, just drop it. In conclusion - we all know the correct interpretation. It still could be worded better solely for the sake of clarity. That's all. Sheesh.

@TheNick:

I think the confusion is simply whether or not the text on Gorzod (and Starblaze for that matter) is optional or mandatory. That is, is it possible to build a Gorzod deck under the standard deckbuilding rules instead of the modified deckbuilding rules represented by his text.

 

Conventional wisdom would be, "no, you can't." The text is effectively a constant ability (confused by the fact that it applies to deckbuilding rather than in-play actions, I know) without conditions. As such, it applies whenever you use the warlord, and there are no conditions in which the text would not apply.

 

You can can always choose not to put in AM or SM Vehicles, but if you do, it doesn't "turn off" the "cannot include other out of faction cards" requirement. In order for it to work that way, his text would have to say something like, "You may include common Vehicle units from both the [AM] and [SM] factions. If you do, you cannot include other out of faction cards."

Agreed. What you're writing there is clearly the intent.

The issue is that an 'always on' ability (even during deck construction) that has a "maybe" implication can always be on but not ever apply. For example, I may/am always able to steal a car, but I won't stay out of prison. In that case, there is an understood/implied if/then relationship in the phrase: IF I do this, THEN that. If I do not steal a car, I shouldn't expect to go to prison even though the rule is always on and always applies.

I think the problem is the technical definition of the term may, as it implies consent as well as action.

That is, by saying 'may', you are implying the entire rest of the sentence.

That is, "You may eat potatoes," suggests you can eat potatoes.

"You may drive a car or drive an airplane," suggests you can jump in either of those vehicles.

"You may eat potatoes, but you must exercise." This phrase here is the problem. This is the construction the card uses. It suggests that you can eat potatoes or you can choose to not eat potatoes, but if you do, you must exercise.

What it doesn't do is say you are allowed to eat potatoes, but whether you eat them or not you must exercise.

That's the issue with the word "may". It's grammatically correct for either the correct interpretation or the incorrect interpretation, depending on how the sentence is constructed. The sentence is structured to imply a causal relationship.

The best way to have phrased it with the 'always on deck building requirement' would be:

You may not include any other non-Ork faction cards except [those vehicles].

Hmm. But consider, "You may go home, but you must leave." 

Doesn't that say you are allowed to go home, but whether you do or not you must leave? Without necessarily being constructed to imply a causal relationship? Or if there is a causal relationship, it is the "may go home" that is caused by the "must leave"?