Kirai(envoy of the court) "join us" ability

[RayMet]

Hello there
The text of Join Us ability is poorly worded. It's not clear what model should move through other model. Should a friendly Urami model move through an enemy? Or should it be the opposite?

[Maniacal_cackle]

If a friendly urami model moves through an enemy model, the enemy takes a willpower duel.

It has to be from an action, though. So for instance if a Goryo charges through an enemy, they need to make a willpower duel.

But if a Goryo uses the deadly pursuit upgrade to move through someone, that won't work.

[RayMet]

Quote

If a friendly urami model moves through an enemy model, the enemy takes a willpower duel.

It has to be from an action, though. So for instance if a Goryo charges through an enemy, they need to make a willpower duel.

But if a Goryo uses the deadly pursuit upgrade to move through someone, that won't work.

 

It looks to me that the sentence is incorrect. I mean the part where "something is moved through by something else". I've never seen that use of English.

[RayMet]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

If a friendly urami model moves through an enemy model, the enemy takes a willpower duel.

It has to be from an action, though. So for instance if a Goryo charges through an enemy, they need to make a willpower duel.

But if a Goryo uses the deadly pursuit upgrade to move through someone, that won't work.

To me it would be better to word it this way: "After any action in which a friendly Urami model is moved through an enemy model...".

[Adran]

An enemy model needs to be moved through by a friendly Urami model. My Grammar is not good so I'm not able to say if the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

35 minutes ago, RayMet said:

To me it would be better to word it this way: "After any action in which a friendly Urami model is moved through an enemy model...".

This sounds confusing from a rules sense, in that it is passive, and would be argued that it doesn't apply if the model moves itself through but only if something else moved it through. 

Ultimatly, whilst it might take a second look to fully understand the sentence, it does only work when an enemy model is moved through. Moving the enemy model through another model won't work. The sentence only allows one of those (at least to me, a native english speaker, its clear). 

[santaclaws01]

Grammatically it's fine, just non-standard. The standard way to word it would be "...moves through an enemy model..."

[Zoer]

1 minute ago, santaclaws01 said:

Grammatically it's fine, just non-standard. The standard way to word it would be "...moves through an enemy model..."

Can you please point me to any example where this is grammatically correct? I can't find any.

[Zoer]

This is how I understand it. If object A is moved through object B, it means that A went through B, not the other way around. Also, if "object A is moved by object B", it means that B did something to move A. I can't find any example of "is moved through by".

So to me it reads like an enemy model should move through a friendly Urami model. Moreover, that move should be caused by a friendly Urami model. All of this makes it really hard to perform.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Zoer said:

Can you please point me to any example where this is grammatically correct? I can't find any.

My dog moves through an open doorway. 

From the point of the doorway you would write the sentence as follows " The open doorway was moved through by my dog."

I've changed the subject and object(?) around. 

1 hour ago, Zoer said:

This is how I understand it. If object A is moved through object B, it means that A went through B, not the other way around. Also, if "object A is moved by object B", it means that B did something to move A. I can't find any example of "is moved through by".

So to me it reads like an enemy model should move through a friendly Urami model. Moreover, that move should be caused by a friendly Urami model. All of this makes it really hard to perform.

You start off correctly, if A moves through B then A went through B.  In that instance B is moved through by object A. 

The friendly Urami model needs to move through an enemy model, and it needs to occur during an action. It doesn't matter who caused the move

[Zoer]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

My dog moves through an open doorway. 

From the point of the doorway you would write the sentence as follows " The open doorway was moved through by my dog."

I've changed the subject and object(?) around. 

Sorry, but I can't find any examples of such use of the passive voice. This sentence does not make any sense.

Let's look at another example. "A house was moved through the streets by truck". In this case the house moves through the streets and it's being moved by a truck. If we drop "the streets" part we'll get "A house was moved through by truck". It does not mean that the truck moved through the house.

I hope that makes sense

[Adran]

25 minutes ago, Zoer said:

Sorry, but I can't find any examples of such use of the passive voice. This sentence does not make any sense.

Let's look at another example. "A house was moved through the streets by truck". In this case the house moves through the streets and it's being moved by a truck. If we drop "the streets" part we'll get "A house was moved through by truck". It does not mean that the truck moved through the house.

I hope that makes sense

Your new sentence doesn't make sense because you have removed what the house has moved through. (And if anything it does mean you moved through the house with the truck)

You can't just drop "the street" part you would have to move "through the streets", because "the streets" is what the "through" is referring to.  So you should make the sentence " The house was moved by truck". Because "A house was moved through" and " A house was moved through the streets" have two very different meanings. In one case the house is what was moved through and in the other the streets is what was moved through

"I moved through the park by bike" does mean the bike also moved through the park. 

As I said, I'm a native speaker, which means I haven't really been taught the language properly, I just picked it up. 

 

[Zoer]

37 minutes ago, Adran said:

Your new sentence doesn't make sense because you have removed what the house has moved through. (And if anything it does mean you moved through the house with the truck)

You can't just drop "the street" part you would have to move "through the streets", because "the streets" is what the "through" is referring to.  So you should make the sentence " The house was moved by truck". Because "A house was moved through" and " A house was moved through the streets" have two very different meanings. In one case the house is what was moved through and in the other the streets is what was moved through

"I moved through the park by bike" does mean the bike also moved through the park. 

As I said, I'm a native speaker, which means I haven't really been taught the language properly, I just picked it up. 

 

My main objection is that if we say "something is moved through", it basically means the same as "something moved through". Adding "by" just tells us who or what caused that movement, it does not change the subject.

I've asked some of my friends and we all agreed that the original sentence sounds incorrect. I guess there will be other people, too.

Ideally, it would be nice to see a detailed explanation from the developers.

[muraki]

1 minute ago, Zoer said:

46 minutes ago, Adran said:

Your new sentence doesn't make sense because you have removed what the house has moved through. (And if anything it does mean you moved through the house with the truck)

You can't just drop "the street" part you would have to move "through the streets", because "the streets" is what the "through" is referring to.  So you should make the sentence " The house was moved by truck". Because "A house was moved through" and " A house was moved through the streets" have two very different meanings. In one case the house is what was moved through and in the other the streets is what was moved through

"I moved through the park by bike" does mean the bike also moved through the park. 

As I said, I'm a native speaker, which means I haven't really been taught the language properly, I just picked it up. 

 

Expand  

My main objection is that if we say "something is moved through", it basically means the same as "something moved through". Adding "by" just tells us who or what caused that movement, it does not change the subject.

I've asked some of my friends and we all agreed that the original sentence sounds incorrect. I guess there will be other people, too.

Ideally, it would be nice to see a detailed explanation from the developers.

While I dont think the line isn't the clearest, it does make sense.  I think the issue with any revisions on the sentence is that unlike most things that go 'when X does Y' this one is more 'when Z is affected by A/B'.  Like Anchor goes 'when a friendly model would x, then y', this one is just strange cause its 'when x happens to an enemy, but y hasn't happened to the enemy, then z'.

So my read is 'when something happens that moves a friendly Urami through an enemy model, if that enemy hasn't failed a duel, take a duel to see if you get a summon'.  The summon check being the piece that I think forces us into this odd grammer, as if you flip it around (say maybe 'after any action in which a friendly urami model moves through any number of enemy models, if the enemy models have not...' ) you end up with questions like 'it says an urami moves through an enemy, so only 1 has to duel?' etc.  Which is why I'm 'fine' with the current wording, as it's at least clear that the enemy is the results.

While of course there must be a perfect phrase for it, the current wording is clear in intent (aka urami moves, duels happen if they haven't failed, summons occur) so I don't really see why this would need a revision/faq/etc.  Is it purely grammatically correct?  IDK, but show me a native speaker who always uses correct grammer (god knows I don't).

[Adran]

20 minutes ago, Zoer said:

My main objection is that if we say "something is moved through", it basically means the same as "something moved through". Adding "by" just tells us who or what caused that movement, it does not change the subject.

I don't think they mean the same thing.

"Something is moved through" has the something as the stationary thing. That can be changed by later parts of the sentence, but as written "the something" stayed still. 

"Something moved through"  has the something as the mobile part. 

Likewise there is a difference between "The cat moved by the garage" and " The cat was moved by the garage". In the second sentence the Garage is responsible for moving the cat, but not in the first. 

 

I have no idea if the designers are going to add it to the FAQ next update, but at the moment it isn't released. The text (to me) can only be read 1 way, that the friendly Urami model must move through an enemy model. It may not be the prettiest sentence (lets be honest we are just arguing over the first 1/4!) but I don't think its incorrect. Making it "prettier" may result in making it much longer and unable to fit on the card. 

 

[Zoer]

7 minutes ago, muraki said:

after any action in which a friendly urami model moves through any number of enemy models

I'd actually prefer this variant. It sounds much clearer.

I do not expect all native speakers to use correct grammar, but it's the rules we're talking about. I expect them to be as clear as possible.

[Adran]

1 minute ago, Zoer said:

I'd actually prefer this variant. It sounds much clearer.

I do not expect all native speakers to use correct grammar, but it's the rules we're talking about. I expect them to be as clear as possible.

"After an action in which a friendly Urami model moves through any enemy models, then each enemy model passed through that hasn't failed a duel from Join with me this turn has to pass a TN 13 WP duel or this model may summon a WP 4 or less Urami minion into base contact with that model. "

 

Gets pretty wordy and complex if you don't use the enemy model as the subject. Also left asking questions about the order of testing to selecting the summon if you pass through more than 1 model. In the original wording, its clear its test -select test- select etc. But in the alternative wording is it Test-Select, Test-select or test test select select?

[Zoer]

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

"After an action in which a friendly Urami model moves through any enemy models, then each enemy model passed through that hasn't failed a duel from Join with me this turn has to pass a TN 13 WP duel or this model may summon a WP 4 or less Urami minion into base contact with that model. "

 

Gets pretty wordy and complex if you don't use the enemy model as the subject. Also left asking questions about the order of testing to selecting the summon if you pass through more than 1 model. In the original wording, its clear its test -select test- select etc. But in the alternative wording is it Test-Select, Test-select or test test select select?

What if we simply change the order like this? "After any action in which a friendly Urami model is moved through an enemy model, if the enemy model..."

[Adran]

1 minute ago, Zoer said:

What if we simply change the order like this? "After any action in which a friendly Urami model is moved through an enemy model, if the enemy model..."

Not sure that would work for multiple enemy models passed through in 1 action

[solkan]

6 hours ago, Zoer said:

Can you please point me to any example where this is grammatically correct? I can't find any.

You wouldn’t object to “When an enemy model is hit by a friendly Urami model...” compared to “When a friendly Urami model hits an enemy model”, would you?

This is just “When an enemy model is moved through by a friendly Urami model” vs. “When a friendly Urami model moves through an enemy model”.

Note that one of the reasons it is “is moved through by” instead of “moves through” is probably to avoid arguments over Model X pushing/moving Model Y (the Urami) through Model Z (the enemy model).  

[SpenceWilder]

This. This is what discourages many from trying Malifaux.