Does anyone know what this guys bloodied attack/hp are?

2 / 5

Does anyone know when deck builder will work correctly with him?

Well, Starblaze took a little over 60 days, so I dont see Gorzod getting fixed for a while, but hey, you never know.

No problem, I am spoiled by this site I guess I have to build him the old fashioned way.

Oi! Someone said dat my rules are poorly written or somtin', so let me help ya:

I may include common (dat means non-loyal an' non-signatur') Vehicle units from tasty Space Marines an' puny Astra Militarum flies as allies, but nut other non-Ork kards in my possy..

C'mon boyz, dat is not dat hard to understand. Da Marine an' Guard kards must have da Vehicle trait boyz!

Aftah dis I get a discount of 1 on dose non-Ork Vehicle unit's cost. Der we go!

Oi! Someone said dat my rules are poorly written or somtin', so let me help ya:

I may include common (dat means non-loyal an' non-signatur') Vehicle units from eider tasty Space Marines or puny Astra Militarum flies as allies, but nut other non-Ork kards in my possy..

 

C'mon boyz, dat is not dat hard to understand. Da Marine or Guard kards must have da Vehicle trait boyz!

 

Aftah dis I get a discount of 1 on dose non-Ork Vehicle unit's cost. Der we go!

Also, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH

 Vehicle units from eider tasty Space Marines or puny Astra Militarum flies as allies

AND, ya filthy git.  AND.

You may include common Vehicle units from both the [Astra Militarum] and [Space Marine] factions, but cannot include other out of faction cards.

There are two valid interpretations speaking from the point of view of common, regular English. To summarize the above:

You may A, but you cannot B.

When phrased that way, it makes the B statement ("...but B!") sound conditional on the A. That is, an if/then relationship. "You may or you may not do A." "You may not or you may do A." The implication being A is optional, but by doing A, you also take B. i.e. if you take the awesome A ability, it comes with the B drawback.

It's also complicated by the unnecessary comma before the but. That is, to suggest otherwise, it probably should read "A is optional but B is mandatory."

It's clear what the intent is after playing the game and reading the forum, but for a new player who doesn't know the game balance intimately after months of playing games, their only fallback is normal conversational English and the rules in the insert, which don't clarify.

Personally, I would have phrased it absolutely unambiguously like so:

You MAY include common Vehicle units from both the [Astra Militarum] and [Space Marine] factions. You CANNOT include any other out of faction cards.

Or

You CANNOT include any out of faction cards whatsoever except common Vehicle units from both the [Astra Militarum] and [Space Marine] factions.

No room for misinterpretation at all, even unintentional or non-malicious misinterpretation. I remember this conversation coming up when first peeking at the cards among people who weren't CardDB'ers.
 

Also, WAAAAGH!

You may include common Vehicle units from both the [Astra Militarum] and [Space Marine] factions, but cannot include other out of faction cards.

 

There are two valid interpretations speaking from the point of view of common, regular English. To summarize the above:

You may A, but you cannot B.

 

When phrased that way, it makes the B statement ("...but B!") sound conditional on the A. That is, an if/then relationship. "You may or you may not do A." "You may not or you may do A." The implication being A is optional, but by doing A, you also take B. i.e. if you take the awesome A ability, it comes with the B drawback.

 

It's also complicated by the unnecessary comma before the but. That is, to suggest otherwise, it probably should read "A is optional but B is mandatory."

 

It's clear what the intent is after playing the game and reading the forum, but for a new player who doesn't know the game balance intimately after months of playing games, their only fallback is normal conversational English and the rules in the insert, which don't clarify.

 

Personally, I would have phrased it absolutely unambiguously like so:

 

You MAY include common Vehicle units from both the [Astra Militarum] and [Space Marine] factions. You CANNOT include any other out of faction cards.

 

Or

 

You CANNOT include any out of faction cards whatsoever except common Vehicle units from both the [Astra Militarum] and [Space Marine] factions.

 

No room for misinterpretation at all, even unintentional or non-malicious misinterpretation. I remember this conversation coming up when first peeking at the cards among people who weren't CardDB'ers.
 

Also, WAAAAGH!

Deckbuilding rules for Gorzod and Starblaze are in the inserts of Planetfall cycle. It is indicated there that the constraints are not conditional. Meaning you MUST follow them. Designers use of 'MAY' has caused so much confusion for everybody. They should have used 'MUST'. If you want a rule reference, get the inserts from planetfall cycle.

Deckbuilding rules for Gorzod and Starblaze are in the inserts of Planetfall cycle. It is indicated there that the constraints are not conditional. Meaning you MUST follow them. Designers use of 'MAY' has caused so much confusion for everybody. They should have used 'MUST'. If you want a rule reference, get the inserts from planetfall cycle.

Yeah. "Mays" and "Musts" are good to use provided those are exactly what you mean. Good insights.

Good point with the Faction rules for neutrals. Whhile not necessarily intuitive or obvious, the rules in the main rulebook are clear.

The phrases on the Gorzod card are not a problem unto themselves, but the combination of them conjoined with a comma and the word but leads to the confusion because it suggests and if-then relationship (i.e. You may eat the non-chocolate chip cookies, but you will ruin your appetite before dinner. The relationship here is not you can choose to eat cookies or to not eat cookies but you absolutely must ruin your dinner even if you don't have any cookies. Spreading it into two sentences makes it clear, albeit silly when referring to cookies: you may eat the cookies. You must ruin your appetite before dinner.)

I think the sentence is different if you insert "not" into the second part. 

Which makes it sound like : "You may do ... , but (whatever you decide) you can not ...."

If they wanted to make it condition they would have to add "then".