I don’t understand, guys. I’m honestly with thanny on this one. I can see where the confusion lies in the wording, but logically the card could only reactivate the general. Afterall, Sleet Dancer had nearly the same text (but using ‘it’ instead of ‘them’) but I’ve not heard of anyone being confused by that card.
Trials Of Mythron Spoiler - Resonance Scythe (Vanar)
1 Like
We all do, but Thanatos sounded quite sarcastic in his responses. He must’ve been having a rough day, so we’re not going to reprehend him either.
I’m not saying anything about how he responded (and he did apologize). I just don’t see why there’s a hubbub about it in the first place, especially to this degree.
1 Like
Because the text is confusing? According to common sense, it is impossible to reactivate a destroyed minion, but the text could technically be stating otherwise depending on personal translations. It’s not a matter of straightforwardly understanding the card or not because we can do that with prior knowledge of the game, but rather a clarity issue where the text makes our initial perception of the game and what we’re reading conflict.
1 Like
Sleet Dasher’s text has no ambiguity, though.
In a (competitive) game with so many rule interactions, having clear and unambiguous card text is IMO paramount because unclear interaction that are “discoverable” can cost you a game.
Loosing due to RNG (i.e. bad draw, not Bloodsworn Gambler RNG) or (lack of) skill, bad match-up etc. is one thing. Loosing due to unclear card text or “discoverable” interaction quite another - and not a good one.
Unclear or bad card text (cough Munch cough) also make a game look… amateurish and unappealing.
4 Likes
If Sleet Dasher’s text isn’t ambitious, then please explain to me why this artifact is. There’s only two differences. One being the stunned condition, the other being slightly different pronoun choice.
Otherwise, I completely agree that text should be as clear as possible. I just don’t think this is one that is hard to understand.
1 Like
Sleet Dasher’s text: Whenever this minion destroys an enemy, reactivate it.
Resonance Scythe’s text: Whenever your general destroys (a stunned) enemy, reactivate them.
I fail to see how Sleet Dasher’s text is anymore ambiguous than Resonance Scythe, especially when considering that “it” in Sleet Dasher’s text could also refer to the destroyed enemy (under the same argument as the use of “them” in Ressonance Scythe).
Second, context clues in the text already suggest that the enemy minion will not be reactivated, since it clearly emphasizes that a stunned enemy needs to be destroyed for the effect to work. Now let’s look at Mindlathe, the closest card to Resonance Scythe.
The word “it” is used to reference the enemy minion. This is also supported by the reference of gaining control of the minion, which assumes that the minion wasn’t under (yours/that general’s) control in the first place. This also shows how the word “it” has been used to reference minions whereas Generals are referred to as them.
Tl;dr: This argument is being blown out of proportion. By paying attention to context clues, it is evident that the card reactivates your general, not the destroyed enemy unit. It it did, it would specifically mention in the text about gaining control of the stunned minion, like Mindlathe does, because reactivating an enemy minion on your turn is pointless, useless, and has never been performed with any other card in the game that does not also explicitly state gaining control of said minion.
5 Likes
The confusing part comes from using the word them. Them usually refers to someone else (or a group of people) when you use it. Like if someone talks about a music band they like and your reaction is “oh, I haven’t heard of them” or " I really like them". You refer to the band by using the word them. But when you play Duelyst you are playing as the general, so referring to the general by using a word that normally refers to someone else, makes it somewhat confusing. You don’t really use the word them to talk about yourself or someone you play in a game. We can come to the logically conclusion that it is the general that reactivates because the minion has to die for the reactivation to happen. But using the word them, makes it sound that it isn’t the general.
While that is true, there are other uses of the word “them” that are outlined in several dictionaries, such as the Macmillan Dictionary. The following example is the second definition of them by the Macmillan Dictionary
While it may not be as common as the definition you outline (refering to a group of individuals), the use of “them” in this situation is not incorrect. It seems weird, because with previous artifacts (ex: Twin Fang), they would use “Your General” instead of “them”. They most likely made this change due to word count (which is further supported with “Stunned” and “enemy” being together with no spaces to separate them). Even still, the context clues provided in this card still points to the General being the one being reactivated, as it is illogical for a destroyed, stunned minion to be reactivated by the card.
2 Likes
It may not be incorrect but when you are using a word to describe what the card does, using a word that has a more common usage for something else, isn’t the best way to explain the card.
Which is probably why CP are using this assortment of words for this card.
Yes, that is true. But not on the first read through of the card for some people (me included). If something takes more than one read through the card text to make it be understood, then it is probably not clear enough.
1 Like
Can’t we just agree that the card could have been worded differently but that it makes sense within context and fits with currently established precedents (Mindlathe, Sleet Dasher)? “Them” is a nice gender neutral term anyway, one that’s likely to become more and more common and thus more intuitive as we all get used to it.
I personally like @solonafir’s version of the text better and would agree with CPG changing the other cards to bring them in line with that approach, but I see no pressing readability reason to change it.
As an aside: I think I would’ve lost my patience way faster than @ThanatosNoa did in the face of people who suddenly no longer seem willing to wrap their minds around phrasing that’s been around for a good long while and hasn’t been considered ambiguous at all up to this point. This game has a lot of clear phrasing issues so I don’t see why we’d feel the need to make our stand on this particular hill.
2 Likes
Which should not be necessary, as per the reasoning I outlined above.
Let’s change from a literal reading to a conceptual reading; maybe that will help illustrate.
Sleet Dasher:
Whenever this (Dasher) destroys an enemy it (Dasher) is reactivated.
Scythe:
Whenever your general destroys an enemy, they are reactivate.
“Them” is, at least in my (non-native) understanding, usually used as a plural pronoun.
While I have seen the less common singular “them” before, those cases were restricted to indefinite cases (as outlined by the dictionary definition: “everyone”, “someone”, etc) where gender is undefined instead of gender-neutral.
It is well possible, however, that I’m projecting German and Latin grammar into the issue.
That’s why.
And this: How many Duelyst players are non-native speakers ? How many of those do have a functional level of English but not enough to correctly parse this card ? How many such badly worded cards does it take before they say “Nah, not worth my time and effort if I have to check uncommon use of words in dictionaries to actually understand a card ?”
We aren’t making a fuss for fuss’ sake but offering non-native speaker’s PoV - and thus, maybe, provide an incentive for whoever does have the power to change unclearly worded cards that it actually happens.
4 Likes
Hey, you know how much I like discussing things with you and how often our opinions match, but this time we have to disagree 
The problem is not with @ThanatosNoa, who is an excellent guy. I don’t think his original reply was particularly rude and I think the forum community is small enough to accept a more “direct” approach to quick replies in general, let alone in (I suspect) particularly stressing times with the expansion right around the corner.
The problem I have is really with the card text. It’s a small thing, but it’s the signal of a bigger problem with a few card texts in Duelyst. During the lunch break, I asked a small group of my colleagues to tell me how they read the card text. None is a native speaker, but they are all good English speakers and intelligent people, so I guess they are a good sample for the test. None and I mean none was able to get the right reading of the card, though I anticipated them the meaning of “reactivate”. They were all confused by the use of “them”, which is plural for anyone who is not into the subtleties of English. I’m not even sure it applies to both British and American English, for sure none of us ever heard of “them” for “him/her”.
Good card texts are important to the game. The “discoverable” gag is fun on the forums, because we are all experienced players who know how these things work and we are quick at sharing our experience with newbies. But many players don’t access the forums at all and they may be really annoyed by the “discoverable” thingy. Also, “discoverable” is bad for the competitive scene and “this is how it used to work” is not a good excuse, because this is not set in stone and one should strive for improving in life.
Are the card templates bad because they don’t allow one to fit enough information in them? Change the card templates! Sorry for the rant 
but my formal side gets annoyed easily 
8 Likes
Can we please just make a poll over this?
For me it is not about criticising the wording or agreement/ disagreement. I have the feeling that you people have put yourself into corners while throwing stones through the glass box in the middle.
As a non-native english speaker I guessed the meaning of the card right, but it still felt not finished. I liked the Idea of solafinir best so far. You don’t even need to put “minion” in there
The card text should get a facelift anyway… There should be a gap between Stunnedenemy.
- Keep the Text as it is
- “Your General has +1 Attack. Reactivate your General whenever it destroys a stunned enemy"
0 voters
PM me if you want other options
1 Like
How my Ilena will look at the start of the expansion.
edit: new version with shiny aura
11 Likes
You forgot the third arm for coldbiter
Im a derp. Didnt see the gauntlet
2 Likes
Well, I had no trouble parsing the card. I did want to weigh in, though, since a lot of the confusion seems to come from non-native speakers and the word “them”.
As folks have been saying, there’s no true singular gender-neutral pronoun in English. I’ve always used singular “them” and hear it used frequently. It’s often taught to be “incorrect”, but it has actually been a part of English for hundreds of years. This explains why native speakers are used to hearing it constantly, but non-native speakers probably wouldn’t have been taught about it when learning the language.
On the other hand, a native English speaker will NEVER use “it” to refer to a person. “It” is for inanimate objects and sometimes animals, and using it on a person is extremely insulting (you’re basically implying you consider them to be a non-sentient object).
Using “it” to refer to minions works because they mostly look like monsters and spirits and other nonhuman things, but for generals I would choose “them” every time if I had to use a pronoun. They’ve always used “it” to refer to minions before, and it was obviously talking about something singular, so when I saw the card text I automatically assumed it referred to the general.
(For what it’s worth, I prefer to use he/she/them when I’m referring to animals too, since I do see them as beings rather than objects so it feels insulting to use “it”. But that’s just a personal preference, both ways are technically fine.)
Sorry for the random grammar lesson, please return to the regularly scheduled discussion about cards. 
3 Likes
Well, I mean, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the word “it” is extremely insulting. It’s meant more like what you said later, that the object being referred to is a monster or an alien. Sometimes people will use it to mean you look ugly or are acting odd and sometimes it is used in a mean-fun kind of way.
Also, someone could be referring to the hit horror movie by Stephen King It. You never know. 
This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.