JM reads: You may search deck, reserve or discard pile (if it contains a martyr) for...
Question: Does the parenthesis "if it contains a martyr" only refer the discard pile, or does it refer to the whole list - i.e. deck, reserve, and discard pile?
Thanks
JM reads: You may search deck, reserve or discard pile (if it contains a martyr) for...
Question: Does the parenthesis "if it contains a martyr" only refer the discard pile, or does it refer to the whole list - i.e. deck, reserve, and discard pile?
Thanks
This is a great example of why I was struggling with the uncommon way of using parenthetical phrases. From a grammatical point of view, the above parenthetical phrase comments on the whole sentence and by extension its subsequent parts, thus the common understanding is that "(if it contains a martyr)" would apply to each the "deck," "reserve," and "discard pile." If the intent was only the discard pile needed a martyr, the expected syntax would be something like: "You may search deck, reserve, or discard pile if it contains a martyr for . . ."
JM reads: You may search deck, reserve or discard pile (if it contains a martyr) for...
Question: Does the parenthesis "if it contains a martyr" only refer the discard pile, or does it refer to the whole list - i.e. deck, reserve, and discard pile?
Thanks
This is a great example of why I was struggling with the uncommon way of using parenthetical phrases. From a grammatical point of view, the above parenthetical phrase comments on the whole sentence and by extension its subsequent parts, thus the common understanding is that "(if it contains a martyr)" would apply to each the "deck," "reserve," and "discard pile." If the intent was only the discard pile needed a martyr, the expected syntax would be something like: "You may search deck, reserve, or discard pile if it contains a martyr for . . ."
I'm not a grammar expect so I don't know if this would be the technical best way to do it but whenever I write a list and only one item has a qualifier I put it first so in this case it would be "You may search discard pile (if it contains a martyr), deck, or reserve for...". That seems the clearest way to communicate it IMO.
I'm not a grammar expect
Only discard pile has the requirement.
Only discard pile has the requirement.
Thank you, Kevin.
That confirms what I had previously thought about how to play the card.
Unfortunately, during the last tournament I was in, my opponent convinced me that it should be played the other way -- and this contributed to my loss of that game.
God bless.
The first format is what we used for that sort of upgrade this year in FoM, so I'm not sure why it would have been changed last year. I think Justin Martyr was the first card to conditionally upgrade to a new location, so maybe the format wasn't completely ironed out.
The first format is what we used for that sort of upgrade this year in FoM, so I'm not sure why it would have been changed last year. I think Justin Martyr was the first card to conditionally upgrade to a new location, so maybe the format wasn't completely ironed out.
but why use parentheses?
RedemptionAggie's post above shows how parentheses can be used in everyday language to good effect.
And I use parentheses all the time in work emails, primarily when I am sending multiple attachments to clients and I need to make a clarification on one of the attachments. I simply use parentheses after the attachment that needs clarification. Works perfect. Justin Martyr is the same principle.
Maybe the grammar police have determined that parentheses are inappropriate and need to be replaced by commas and semicolons... But the grammar police have been wrong before, such as beginning sentences with conjunctions (anyone remember that awesome scene from Finding Forrester? ;) ) or ending sentences with prepositions - which there's nothing wrong with.