Grammar Wars Erupt Over 'Effect' Keyword: CCG Mechanics Clash with English Rules
The core conflict centers on the correct usage of 'effect' within collectible card games. The debate forces a choice: enforce established game keywords or adhere to standard English grammar.
Community input is split into two armed camps. One faction, represented by DragonTypeWyvern, asserts that 'effect' functions as an unbreakable game keyword that overrides common linguistic rules. Conversely, linguistic purists argue the construction is flawed, pointing out the noun/verb distinction (stray noted the 'effect' vs. 'affect' difference).
Ultimately, the discussion reveals the industry's playbook for complexity: BeanGoblin points out the simple strategy is 'Just keep printing stronger cards and never stop.' The divide stands between mechanical precedent and grammatical purity.
Key Points
Game keywords must take precedence over dictionary rules.
DragonTypeWyvern argues that 'effect' operates as a recognized keyword within the game's rule framework, overriding standard English grammar.
The mechanical challenge of card games is artificial complexity.
BeanGoblin claims the solution to power creep is simply to 'keep printing stronger cards and never stop,' increasing text length.
Grammatical enforcement is mandatory.
Linguists argue the construction is grammatically wrong, focusing on the required noun/verb distinction.
Game complexity actively drives player behavior.
Some users (moakley) observe players adopting more aggressive, simpler tactics to manage the mental load imposed by convoluted rules.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.